Appendices and Bibliography
APPENDICES
577 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
578 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 1—Submission guide
INQUIRY INTO THE HANDLING OF CHILD ABUSE BY RELIGIOUS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS
SUBMISSION GUIDE
1. WHO CAN MAKE SUBMISSIONS? 3. WHAT SORT OF SUBMISSIONS CAN BE MADE?
All interested parties can make submissions to the Submissions may be in writing or, where an Inquiry. The bi-partisan Family and Community individual does not wish to make a written Development Committee is seeking submissions submission, on a verbal basis only. from both individuals and organisations in relation All submissions are treated as public, unless to its Terms of Reference to the Inquiry. otherwise requested. The Committee can receive The Committee welcomes submissions from written and oral evidence on a confidential basis victims of child abuse and others who have been where this is requested and agreed to by the affected by the consequences of such abuse. Committee. This will generally be in situations in which victims believe that giving evidence It acknowledges that preparing submissions and publicly may have an adverse effect on them or giving evidence to such an Inquiry can be a very their families. difficult experience for victims of child abuse and their supporters. This Guide is intended to assist in Please indicate if you want your submission the process of preparing a submission. treated as confidential and provide a brief explanation.
2. WHAT EVIDENCE CAN SUBMISSIONS INCLUDE? 4. TERMS OF REFERENCE The Committee is seeking information relating to: The Committee has been asked by the Victorian • The causes and effects of criminal abuse within Government to consider and report to the religious and other non-government Parliament on the processes by which religious organisations. and other non-government organisations respond to the criminal abuse of children by personnel • Whether victims were in any way discouraged from reporting such abuse, either within the within their organisations, including: relevant organisation or to the police. 1. the practices, policies and protocols in such • If such abuse was reported, how the reporting of organisations for the handling of allegations of their experience of abuse was handled. criminal abuse of children, including measures put in place by various organisations • The consequences of abuse, including the effect in response to concerns about such abuse on the victims and others, and the consequences for the perpetrator(s). within the organisation or the potential for such abuse to occur; • The adequacy of the policies, procedures and practices within religious and other non- 2. whether there are systemic practices in such government organisations that relate to the organisations that operate to preclude prevention of, and response to, child abuse. or discourage the reporting of suspected criminal abuse of children to State authorities; • Suggestions for reform, to help prevent abuse and ensure that allegations of abuse are and properly dealt with. This includes both reforms to 3. whether changes to law or to practices, Victorian laws and reforms to the policies, procedures and practices within religious and policies and protocols in such organisations other non-government organisations. are required to help prevent criminal abuse of children by personnel in such organisations and to deal with allegations of such abuse.
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 1
579 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
In undertaking the Inquiry, the Committee has The Committee will generally take evidence in been asked not to impinge on the responsibilities public. That is, it will publish the submissions it of police or the courts in relation to particular receives on its website and will undertake cases or prejudice the conduct or outcome of hearings in public. investigations or court proceedings. However, the Committee also has the power to Parliamentary Committees do not have a role in receive evidence on a confidential basis where investigating criminal matters. this is requested. All parties making submissions are encouraged to indicate whether they would like This Guide is intended to assist organisations and their evidence to be treated as confidential. individuals who want to make a written submission and/or who would like to present evidence The circumstances under which the Committee before the Committee at a public hearing. may consider receiving evidence confidentially include whether victims believe that giving The questions in this Guide provide an indication evidence publicly may have an adverse effect on of the issues the Committee will be considering, them or their families. Oral evidence may also be but they are not intended to be exhaustive. It is received on a confidential basis if requested. not necessary to address all the questions in a submission. The Committee may use confidential evidence in its deliberations, but will not quote from 5. SCOPE OF INQUIRY confidential evidence in its report.
This Inquiry considers how religious and other non- 7. EVIDENCE FROM VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL CHILD government organisations respond to the criminal ABUSE abuse of children by personnel within their organisations. The Terms of Reference ask the Committee to examine the processes and procedures that are The Terms of Reference cover: used by religious and other organisations to respond to suspected, alleged and proven • All religions and denominations. instances of criminal child abuse. • Non-government organisations providing child related services or activities (in areas such as The views of victims regarding the effectiveness or welfare, education, sport or recreation). otherwise of processes will be critical in informing the Committee’s investigations. The Inquiry will not be assuming responsibility for investigating individual cases that are currently There is no single way for any person or under investigation by police, but will be able to organisation to approach a submission. The refer particular matters to the police for Committee understands that people will want to investigation. approach their submissions differently.
The Committee seeks to ensure it minimises any ONDUCT OF THE NQUIRY 6. C I experiences through the Inquiry that may further The Committee will conduct a thorough, traumatise victims of abuse and/or their families evidence-based Inquiry that is sensitive to the and supporters). needs and concerns of all individuals affected by The Committee emphasises that for those people child abuse in religious and other organisations. who do not want to retell their experience of In conducting its investigations, the Committee will abuse, the Terms of Reference enable them to seek written submissions up to 31 August 2012. It focus specifically on the response to the will also hold public hearings from September experience by the organisation. At the same time, 2012. the Committee also recognises that for some people, retelling their experience will be an In addition to submissions and hearings, under the important part of their submission. Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, the Committee has the legal power to compel the The Committee acknowledges that revisiting attendance of persons and the production of issues relating to experiences of abuse may be documents and other things. distressing and traumatic.
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 2
580 Appendices and Bibliography
Many individuals have existing supports that can Non-government organisations provide assistance with writing submissions and participating in public hearings. The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry extend to include abuse occurring within secular, For those people who feel they need support to non-government or community organisations. prepare a submission, but do not have existing support, please contact the Committee to discuss Organisations that provide child related activities your support requirements. or services (such as welfare, education, sport or recreation) are relevant to the Terms of Please indicate in your submission if you want: Reference.
• Your submission considered confidential The Committee is seeking submissions relating to how criminal abuse of children is handled in non- • To appear before a public hearing. government organisations. This includes measures that may exist to prevent abuse. 8. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
The Committee acknowledges that there are 9. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT terms and definitions relating to the Terms of In January 2011 the Protecting Victoria's Reference that require further clarification. Vulnerable Children Inquiry was launched to Criminal abuse of children investigate Victoria's child protection system and make recommendations to strengthen and In the context of criminal abuse of children, improve the protection and support of vulnerable criminal abuse generally includes: young people.
• Unlawful physical assaults. The Inquiry was chaired by former Supreme Court Justice, the Hon Phillip Cummins and reported in • Sexual abuse offences, such as rape or indecent January 2012. assault under the Victorian Crimes Act 1958.
• Any acts of criminal neglect that may give rise to The Report considered the issue of the sexual and child protection intervention under the Children, other abuse of children by personnel in religious Youth and Families Act 2005. organisations, including:
• Facilitating such offences by others. • Whether mandatory reporting of child abuse should be extended to religious personnel. Sexual and other forms of physical abuse are often linked with demeaning or degrading • Whether the Working with Children Act 2005 and behaviour that include verbal and emotional its vetting procedures apply to religious abuse. The Terms of Reference allow for organisations. consideration of such behaviour that may lead to • The internal processes and practices that may criminal abuse or allow it to occur. operate within religious organisations to preclude or discourage reporting of criminal abuse to the Religious organisations police or other state authorities.
The Committee is seeking submissions from all The Inquiry Report recommended that: religious and spiritual faiths. A formal investigation should be conducted into The term ‘religious personnel’ covers both the processes by which religious organisations ‘ministers of religion’ and other lay personnel. respond to the criminal abuse of children by religious personnel within their organisation. Such • ‘Ministers of religion’ refers to those who perform an investigation should possess the powers to spiritual functions associated with beliefs and practices of religious faiths and provide compel the elicitation of witness evidence and of motivation, guidance and training in religious life documentary and electronic evidence. for the people of congregations and parishes, and the wider community.
• ‘Religious personnel’ also includes employees and volunteers acting within religious bodies or related organisations.
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 3
581 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Support 10.RESPONSES TO CHILD ABUSEVICTIM EXPERIENCES 10.13 Were you supported by the organisation? If The Committee is seeking information from victims so, how? relating to: 10.14 Did you receive counselling or • The causes and effects of criminal abuse within psychological help? If so, who provided it? religious and other non-government 10.15 Did you receive an apology or an organisations. acknowledgment of the abuse you had • Whether they were able to report such abuse, suffered? either within the relevant organisation or to the 10.16 How adequate was the support that was police. offered? • If such abuse was reported, how the reporting of their experience of abuse was handled. Result
Reporting the abuse 10.17 Did the religious or other organisation accept responsibility for what happened? 10.1 Could you tell anyone about what 10.18 What was the consequence for the happened? perpetrator(s)? 10.2 Did you feel discouraged from reporting 10.19 Were you offered an apology, the abuse? compensation or other forms of assistance? 10.3 Who did you tell about what happened? If so, were there any conditions attached to 10.4 How long after the abuse occurred did you accepting that compensation or assistance? tell someone? 10.20 As a result of your complaint to the 10.5 Did you tell the religious body or other religious or other organisation what actions organisation about the abuse? were taken by them? 10.6 If you delayed in telling or reporting what 10.21 How long did it take to achieve a result? prevented you from disclosing earlier? 10.22 Were you satisfied with the process in Response to the disclosure dealing with the complaint and/or the result? 10.7 What was the initial response from the 10.23 What was your view of the effectiveness organisation? and adequacy of any compensation, either 10.8 If there was an investigation of the abuse, offered or received? how was it conducted? 10.24 What were the effects of the result on you 10.9 What meetings or other interactions did and other individuals? (eg. Family members you have with the organisation? and supporters) 10.10 Were you encouraged or supported to report your abuse to the police? Did you do 11.RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF CHILD this? If not, why not? ABUSERELIGIOUS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS 10.11 What were the consequences for the The Committee’s Terms of Reference ask it to perpertrator(s)? investigate the practices, policies and protocols in 10.12 What were the effects of the response to religious and other organisations. the disclosure on the victim and other In considering these practices, it is seeking individuals? (eg. Family members, other submissions on: members of the organisation) • The nature of the policies and their effectiveness
• The implementation of policies and how they are complied with
• Processes for review or evaluation of policies
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 4
582 Appendices and Bibliography
• Any accountability mechanisms surrounding them 11.11 How is the compensation system/ procedure run? Is it independent from the • How supports are provided to victims operations of the organisation? Is it • The approach to monetary and other forms of overseen by a panel? compensation. 11.12 Does the acceptance of one form of Current policies, protocols and frameworks compensation prevent victims pursuing other forms of compensation? 11.1 What policies, protocols, frameworks and/or charters are currently in place in The Committee is seeking copies of documents used by religious and other organisations in Victorian religious and secular non- responding to child abuse. government organisations to address child abuse within those organisations? 12.INVESTIGATING REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE 11.2 What is the nature of the policy? 11.2.1 Is it proactive/reactive? The Committee is seeking submissions about 11.2.2 Is it publicly available (if so, how)? internal investigation processes used by religious and other organisations in relation to child abuse. 11.2.3 Is it time limited? 11.3 Who is responsible for the policy? Is the It is also seeking information about processes for policy internal or external to the governing referring reports of child abuse to the police. bodies of the religious or other The Committee would appreciate receiving any organisation? internal documentation from religious and other 11.4 How are alleged and proven offenders dealt organisations relating to investigation and referral with? processes in the context of child abuse.
Accountability mechanisms 12.1 What processes for internal investigation exist in religious and other organisations? 11.5 What accountability mechanisms apply to 12.2 Have allegations of child abuse been the organisation’s policy? Is it open to reported to police when the organisation is outside scrutiny or review? made aware of them? 11.6 Is there an appeal process or dispute 12.3 What processes are in place for reporting resolution process for victims or offenders? cases of alleged child abuse to the police? 12.4 In what circumstances, if any, would the Supports for victims alleged abuse not be reported?
11.7 What supports are available to victims and 13.LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES other family members or significant others? 11.8 Can victims seek independent support? The Committee recognises that the processes to 11.9 What is the role of counsellors in religious address child abuse within their organisations might involve consideration of doctrinal laws, and other organisations? customs and ethical codes specific to a religion.
Compensation and reparation Regardless of observance of religious laws, customs and ethical codes, state laws regarding 11.10 Do systems for addressing abuse within the criminal child abuse must be observed and given organisation allow for monetary or other precedence. forms of compensation? The Committee is seeking submission on areas of law and legal processes that include but are not limited to:
• Religious laws and practice
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 5
583 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
• Mandatory reporting 13.7 To what extent should the reporting of • Working with children checks suspicions of abuse be circumscribed by • Potential new laws. laws, customs and ethical codes of religions? (For example, should the Religious laws and practice sacrament of the Catholic confessional The Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children remain sacrosanct in these circumstances?) Inquiry noted that while internal complaint and 13.8 What consequences may flow from the redress systems may have a role to play, in many extension of mandatory reporting to cases their processes and procedures are not ministers of religion? necessarily subject to public scrutiny.
13.1 In what ways are religious laws and Working with children checks
procedures used to address abuse within Another issue considered by the Protecting the organisation? Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry was whether 13.2 Have internal systems of investigation the Working with Children Act 2005 (WWC Act) discouraged reporting of criminal acts to should apply to religious personnel. the police? The WWC Act established a system to prevent 13.3 Have internal systems of redress people who are not suitable from working with discouraged or prevented civil legal action children. being taken by victims? The WWC Act applies to personnel in religious 13.4 Under what circumstances is it appropriate organisations who regularly work or volunteer with for religious organisations to apply internal children and young people. sanctions to offenders, such as expulsion or laicisation [defrocking]? 13.9 What procedures do religious and other 13.5 Have the legal structures used by religious organisations have in place to ensure the bodies to manage their affairs and their suitability of employing people in the assets acted to discourage or prevent civil organisation who work with children? legal action being taken by victims against 13.10 Are these in addition to those required to offenders? be undertaken by state law? 13.11 How is the Working with Children Act 2005 Mandatory reporting applied in the context of ministers of religion? The Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry considered the issue of extending mandatory reporting of abuse under the Victorian Potential new laws Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 to religious personnel. The Committee notes that, internationally, some countries have explored the creation of laws that Mandatory reporting is a function of the statutory hold administrators in religious or other child protection system rather than the criminal organisations legally responsible for the criminal law. actions of those working or volunteering within the organisation for whom they have responsibility. It also considered that the Victorian Government should impose an appropriate penalty for a failure In addition to civil liability on the organisation, in to report suspected abuse under the Crimes Act some cases these laws include criminal penalties. 1958. This is particularly the case where it can be shown that individuals in the hierarchy of the 13.6 Should mandatory reporting of cases of organisation were aware of the abuse and either ignored it or actively covered it up. alleged criminal abuse be extended to ministers of religion?
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 6
584 Appendices and Bibliography
13.12 Are new laws required to more effectively 15.1 Does the organisation maintain address the institutional abuse of children? comprehensive records data on the 13.13 Should officials in religious and other incidence and prevalence of abuse against organisations be held criminally children in the organisation? If so, are such responsible for the actions of offenders of records publicly available? child abuse in their employ or for whom 15.2 Do organisations share information they have responsibility? Under what regarding proven or suspected cases of circumstances should this apply? abuse to other agencies even in cases where it is not compelled to do so (for 14.RESPONDING TO OFFENDERS AND ALLEGED example, schools, Department of Human OFFENDERS Services)? What confidentiality/privacy considerations flow from this? The Committee is interested to hear about how religious and other organisations aim to protect 15.3 Do religious organisations inform the laity the rights of children against personnel who abuse and other members of the religious or their position of trust. wider community about abuses committed by its members? Should it do so? In particular, the Committee is seeking to hear about how religious and other bodies handle 15.4 How can the wider community be informed instances in which there is suspected abuse, but about child abuse/child protection issues insufficient evidence to charge or convict an or suspicions? alleged offender. 16. PREVENTION 14.1 Are there formal or informal practices or guidelines for the personnel accused, The Committee’s Terms of Reference ask it to consider the prevention of criminal abuse of suspected or convicted of criminal or other children. abuse? 14.2 How should cases be dealt with when there Other Inquiries into child abuse within religious is suspected abuse but insufficient organisations have emphasised the importance of evidence? religious and other organisations being proactive in establishing preventive policies and 14.3 How do religious and other organisations procedures. protect victims when alleged offenders have not been charged or convicted of a The Committee is seeking information about criminal offence? approaches to risk management of child abuse, such as early identification of patterns of behaviour by offenders and potential offenders. 15.DATA, PRIVACY AND PUBLIC INTEREST It is also seeking submissions about proactive The Committee is seeking information about how approaches. data is recorded by religious and other organisations in the context of reports on child 16.1 Are there education or prevention abuse. programs/policies with regard to the abuse It is also seeking submissions on the relationship of children and other vulnerable people in between privacy and public interest. For religious and other organisations? example, concerns have been raised in numerous 16.1.1 What type of programs? Are they Inquiries that the laity in Christian denominations are often not told about the crimes of suspected one-off or ongoing? crimes of religious personnel within their 16.1.2 Who is responsible for developing communities. the programs? 16.1.3 Are these programs internally/ externally run? Or both?
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 7
585 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Victoria Police 16.1.4 Who attends the education programs? Is it compulsory? 17.1 Do any formal/written protocols exist 16.2 For organisations responsible for the between religious / non-government accreditation of ministers of religion, do organisations and Victoria Police? the curricula include training regarding 17.2 Are Victoria Police guidelines and sexual and other forms of abuse (for procedures for investigating child abuse example. at seminaries)? consistently applied across religious or 16.3 Have these programs been evaluated? To other organisations? Are there any what extent have they been successful in guidelines specific to the investigation of addressing or raising awareness of these ministers of religion? forms of criminal abuse? 17.3 Does Victoria Police have liaison officers 16.4 Does the organisation’s framework or that are dedicated to working with religious policy have provisions or guidelines for organisations on cases of criminal abuse? If proactively encouraging/facilitating the not, should there be? reporting of criminal (or other) abuse of children by people within the organisation? Department of Human Services Are new laws required to more effectively address the institutional abuse of children? 17.4 Do religious and other organisations have any formal protocols with the Department 17.RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL BODIES AND of Human Services? If not, what form ORGANISATIONS should they take? Criminal abuse of children is primarily and ultimately a matter for investigation by police and Other organisations child protection personnel and prosecution by state authorities. 17.5 Are there formal or informal protocols or relationships between religious and other The Committee is seeking information about the relationship between religious and other organisations and non-government bodies, organisations and external bodies, such as the such as CASA? If not, what form should police. they take? 17.6 Are there relationships or liaisons between The Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry reported that religious organisations have religious and other organisations and a responsibility to encourage victims to report victims advocacy groups? criminal behaviour to the police. 17.7 Do the organisations network with religious and other organisations to address abuse? The Committee is interested to hear about the For example, interfaith bodies? role of specialist police departments, such as Victoria’s Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Unit, in responding to reports of child abuse in religious and other organisations. This includes the role of the police in developing a prosecution case.
It is also interested to learn about the role of independent support and advocacy groups, such as those that respond to the trauma associated with rape and sexual assault such as the Centre Against Sexual Assault (CASA).
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 8
586 Appendices and Bibliography
18.SUBMISSIONS Preparing a submission
The Committee welcomes written submissions Your submission may address all or part of the addressing one, multiple or all Terms of Reference terms of reference. You do not have to comment of the Inquiry. on every aspect of the Terms of Reference, nor are you confined to just one aspect. Submissions close on 31 August 2012. The Terms of Reference are intended to cover a Submissions can be provided in either hard copy wide range of issues relating to the causes and or by email to the Executive Officer. effects of child abuse, whether such abuse is responded to, and the adequacy of such Electronic submissions should be sent via: responses. • The eSubmission form on the Committee’s website: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc The Terms of Reference enable individuals to recount their experiences of instances of abuse, • Or by email to: [email protected] the response to such abuse and the consequences of such abuse. Hard copy submissions should be sent to: Your submission can contain factual information, Family and Community Development Committee opinion or both. You may want to draw the Parliament House attention of the Committee to something relevant Spring Street to the Inquiry. You may choose to emphasise EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 solutions to the matter or issue before the The Committee draws your attention that all committee. This is entirely your choice. submissions are public documents unless Your submission will be welcomed by the confidentiality is requested. Committee provided it is relevant, not frivolous or Please contact the Committee if confidentiality is offensive in nature, and addresses the terms of sought, as this has bearing on how evidence can reference. be used in the report to Parliament. Submission format
19.MAKING A WRITTEN SUBMISSION There is no specific method for organising or presenting a submission. Your contribution can Who can make a submission? take the form of a letter, a short summary paper or a longer research document. You can include Any person or organisation can make a relevant data in appendices or incorporate them submission to a Committee. Individuals, in the body of the text. It is important that the community groups, private organisations, structure, argument and conclusions of your representatives of government departments and submission are clear. agencies and anyone else interested in an inquiry currently before the Committee are encouraged Hard copy or electronic submissions to make a submission. You can send your submission in hard copy, or Terms of Reference electronically. If you send it in hard copy, a typed document on A4 paper is preferred. If this is not Before preparing your submission, it is important possible, a handwritten submission is acceptable. that you read the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference, as your submission must be relevant to the Electronic submission committee’s Inquiry. If you do not have a copy of the Terms of Reference, please contact the You can provide your submission electronically, by Committee’s office. email, on CD/DVD or by eSubmission (see the Committee website). If you have any questions Please indicate in your submission whether you about the suitability of your file format/size, please wish to give verbal evidence to the Committee. contact the committee office. The Committee will indicate to you whether it would like to appear at a hearing to give verbal evidence.
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 9
587 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Verification of your details submission cannot be used in court against you or anyone else. Please sign the submission. Sign on behalf of yourself, or on behalf of the organisation you are Parliamentary privilege only extends to representing. If you are representing an submissions that are published by the Committee. organisation, please indicate your position in the If a submission is published in another form or for organisation. If relevant, specify at what level the another purpose, that publication will not be submission has been authorised: branch, protected by parliamentary privilege. This means executive, president, sub-committee, executive that you should not reproduce the submission in committee, national body, etc. If you are sending another format or context. You can, however, your submission electronically, please provide your refer others to your submission on the Committee’s name, and relevant contact details (such as website, or advise them to contact the address or phone number). Committee directly.
Supplementary material It is against parliamentary rules for anyone to try to stop you from making a submission by threats or You may wish to support your submission with intimidation. It is also a breach of these rules for other forms of material, such as a video, anyone to harass you or discriminate against you photographs or objects. Please contact the staff because you have made a submission, and of the Committee if you plan to do this, so that Parliament can take action against this appropriate arrangements can be made. This behaviour. may involve material in your possession being loaned or donated to the Committee. Any Confidentiality material borrowed by the Committee will be returned on completion of the Inquiry. If you wish to have your submission kept confidential, please say so clearly at the top of Tone of submissions the submission or in a covering note, explaining why you want it to be kept confidential. If you Submissions form part of the Committee’s want part of the submission to be confidential, proceedings, and help inform the Committee please put that part on a separate page. The about matters relevant to the investigations. Most committee will respect requests for confidentiality. submissions are made public by the committee, If you have concerns about confidentiality, please and can be published on the committee’s discuss these with the Committee’s Executive website. Submissions should be relevant, not Officer before you make a submission. contain offensive language or remarks, and should not be vexatious. A Committee can Public hearings choose not to accept a submission if the Committee feels it breaches any of these Please indicate in your submission whether you guidelines. wish to give verbal evidence to the Committee. The Committee will indicate to you whether it The Committee may return any evidence that it would like to appear at a hearing to give verbal considers irrelevant to its proceedings, offensive or evidence. possible defamatory. For more information about appearing at a public Parliamentary Privilege hearing, see the Parliament of Victoria’s Guide to Giving Evidence at a Public Hearing to a A submission to a Committee becomes a Parliamentary Committee (available on its Committee document once the Committee website). formally decides to accept it as a submission. A Committee may decide not to accept a submission as evidence if it is not relevant to the Terms of Reference, or is offensive.
Once the Committee has authorised the release of a submission, any subsequent publication of it by the Committee is protected by parliamentary privilege. This means that what you say in your
Family and Community Development Committee July 2012 Page 10
588 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 2—Letter to organisations requesting information (5 September 2012)
PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA Family and Community Development Committee
5 September 2012
Dear Stakeholder Organisation,
The Family and Community Development Committee has been asked by the Victorian Government to consider and report to the Parliament on the processes by which religious and other non-government organisations respond to the criminal abuse of children within their organisation (‘the Inquiry’).
The closing date for written submissions was recently extended to close on 21 September 2012. It is anticipated that public hearings will commence soon after the close of submissions.
As part of the Inquiry, the Committee seeks the assistance of your organisation to provide additional information regarding various matters relevant to the Inquiry. This letter has been sent to a significant number of organisations identified by the Committee as relevant to the Inquiry.
Information is sought regarding the treatment of complaints if any, of criminal abuse of children by personnel, if any, within your organization (‘complaints’). The terms of reference are not limited to processes currently in place but also processes that existed, if any, prior to the current treatment of complaints by your organisation.
In particular, the Committee seeks information from your organisation regarding the following:
Process: i) The number and dates of complaints that have been received; ii) The manner in which the complaints were or are treated or the processes, if any, put in place to deal with complaints including; a) The date the process was put in place; b) The level within your organisation that was/is responsible for the handling of complaints; c) Any instructions issued within your organisation regarding reporting of complaints; d) Whether there was any follow up in your organisation on receipt of a complaint, regarding the possibility of similar conduct the subject of the complaint in respect of others; e) Was there any change in the process if the person the subject of the complaint had previously been the subject of another complaint; f) Any instruction or documentation setting out the protocols for dealing with complaints. If so, please provide the Committee with copies of such documents.
PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA | Family and Community Development Committee PARLIAMENT HOUSE, SPRING STREET, EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 T 03 8682 2843 F03 8682 2808 W www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc
589 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
iii) Whether the manner in which the complaints were treated or the processes of dealing with them has changed, and if so, the details of those changes including; a) The date that changes to the process were introduced; b) The level within your organisation that is responsible for the handling of complaints; c) Any instructions issued within your organisation regarding reporting of complaints; d) Whether there is any follow up in your organisation on receipt of a complaint, regarding the possibility of similar conduct the subject of the complaint in respect of others; e) Was there any change in the process if the person the subject of the complaint had previously been the subject of another complaint; f) Any instruction or documentation setting out the protocols for dealing with complaints. If so, please provide the Committee with copies of such documents; iv) If the manner in which the complaints were treated or processed has changed, the number and dates of complaints received since those changes were implemented; v) If the manner in which complaints were treated or processed has changed, whether those who made previous complaints were informed of those changes or their complaint reconsidered in accordance with those changes; vi) Whether complaints amounting to criminal conduct were or are referred to police and if so; a) The number and dates of the complaints that were referred to police; b) Any process, instructions or recommendations within your organisation made to facilitate police inquiries on receipt of a complaint. Please provide the Committee with copies of any relevant documents. vii) What process is in place in your organisation if a complaint is rejected. Compensation/Support i) Whether the person making the complaint (a complainant) has received financial compensation from your organisation; ii) The number of complainants who have received financial compensation from your organisation; iii) Whether any financial compensation received by a complainant is the subject of a confidentiality agreement. If so, please provide the Committee with the form of confidentiality agreement; iv) Were there any instances where a person’s conduct was the subject of more than one confidentiality agreement. If so, the number and dates of occasions that this occurred; v) When, if at all, was insurance taken out by your organisation to cover liability arising from a complaint; vi) Whether your organisation has set up its own process for claiming and determining compensation as a consequence of a complaint; vii) If your organisation has set up a process for compensation, does that preclude a complainant applying for compensation elsewhere; viii)If your organisation has set up a process for compensation, is the process conducted by an external body, an external body appointed by your organisation or an internal body of your organisation; ix) What supports, if any, including counselling, was or is a complainant offered once a complaint is made.
590 Appendices and Bibliography
Consequences of complaint i) What procedures are adopted in respect of the person the subject of a complaint; ii) Whether your organisation or an external agency is responsible for any disciplinary action being taken against the person the subject of a complaint; iii) Whether the details of a complaint and the person the subject of a complaint are recorded and available to others in the organisation or to the public. iv) What procedures or processes if any are adopted to reduce the risk the person the subject of the complaint will re-offend; v) When were such procedures or processes to reduce the risk the person would re- offend put in place. Review/Policy i) Whether there are avenues for review/appeal of a decision made regarding a complaint; ii) Whether any review/appeal is carried out by an external body, an external body appointed by your organisation or your organisation; iii) What, if any accountability mechanisms apply to your organisation’s policy/process and are they open to outside scrutiny or review.
If you have any queries regarding this letter, please contact the Committee Secretariat on 03 8682 2843, by email to ([email protected]) or by post to:
Family and Community Development Committee Parliament House Spring Street East Melbourne VIC 3002
Your assistance in providing this information to the Committee is greatly appreciated. The Committee look forward to receiving your response to this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Georgie Crozier, MP Chair, Family & Community Development Committee
591 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 3—Penalties for sexual assault offences in Victoria
Penalties for rape
s.40(1) Rape. Death penalty.
s.40(2) Rape with mitigating Imprisonment not more than Crimes Act 1928 (VIc) circumstances. 10 years. In force from 12/02/1929 s.41 Attempt/Assault with Imprisonment not more than intent to commit rape. 10 years.
s.2(1)(c)(i) amendment to death Not more than 20 years Crimes Act 1949 (VIc) penalty for rape in 1928 Act. imprisonment. In force from 07/06/1949 Other offences. Penalties remain the same.
Crimes Act 1957 (VIc) and All offences. Penalties remain the same. Crimes Act 1958 (VIc)
s.45(1) Rape. Imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
s.45(2) Attempt/Assault with Imprisonment not more than intent to commit rape. 5 years. Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 19801 (VIc) s.45(3) Rape with aggravating Imprisonment not more than In force from 01/03/1981 circumstances. 20 years.
s.45(4) Attempt/Assault with Imprisonment not more than intent to commit rape and 10 years. aggravating circumstances.
Crimes (Rape) Act 19912 Imprisonment maximum 25 (VIc) s.38(1) Rape. years. In force from 01/01/1992
1 s. 5 substituted new provisions S.45 in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). 2 s.3 substituted new provisions S.38 in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
592 Appendices and Bibliography
Penalties for buggery of a child under 14
s.65(1) Buggery of any person under 14, or any person with Death. violence and without consent.
s.65(2) Buggery in any other Imprisonment not more than Crimes Act 1928 (VIc) situation. 15 years. In force from 12/02/1929 s.65(3) Attempt/Assault with intent to commit buggery or Imprisonment not more than any indecent assault on any 10 years. male.
s.2(1)(e) substitutes death Imprisonment not more than Crimes Act 1949 (VIc) penalty at s.65(1) of 1928 Act. 20 years. In force from 07/06/1949 Other offence. Penalties remain the same.
Crimes Act 1957 (VIc) and All offences. Penalties remain the same. Crimes Act 1958 (VIc)
Crimes (Sexual Offences) Buggery offences against children replaced with ‘Sexual Act 19803 (VIc) Offences against Young Persons’—new Part 8A Crimes Act 1958 In force from 01/03/1981 (Vic).
3 s.6 repeals these offences.
593 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Penalties for sexual penetration of a child under 104 s.42 Unlawful carnal knowledge and abuse of any Death. girl under 10. Crimes Act 1928 (Vic) In force from 12/02/1929 s.43 Attempt/Assault with intent to commit unlawful Imprisonment not more than 10 carnal knowledge and abuse of years. any girl under 10. s.2(1)(d) amends s.42 of 1928 Act: Imprisonment not more than 20 Crimes Act 1949 (Vic) Unlawful carnal knowledge years. In force from 07/06/1949 and abuse of a girl. Attempt/Assault. Penalty remains the same.
Crimes Act 1957 (Vic) and All offences. Penalties remain the same. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s.47(1) Person who takes part Imprisonment not more than 20 in act of sexual penetration years. with a child under 10 years. Crimes (Sexual Inserted in the Crimes Act Imprisonment not more than 10 Offences) Act 19805 (Vic) 1958: years. In force from 01/03/1981 s.47(2) Attempt/Assault with intent to take part in act of sexual penetration with a child under 10 years.
Crimes (Sexual Offences) s.45(1) Act of sexual 6 Imprisonment 20 years Act 1991 (Vic) penetration with a child under for [emphasis added]. In force from 05/08/1991 age of 10.
Crimes (Amendment) s.45(2)(a) Act of sexual 7 Imprisonment 25 years Act 2000 (Vic) penetration with a child under maximum. In force from 22/11/2000 age of 10 at time of offence.
Crimes Legislation s.45(2)(a) Act of sexual Amendment Act 20108 penetration with a child under Imprisonment 25 years (Vic) age of 12 at time of offence maximum. In force from 17/03/2010 [emphasis added].
4 The predecessors of this offence were unlawful carnal knowledge and abuse of a girl under 10 years of age, and buggery. 5 s.5 substitutes the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) relating to carnal knowledge with new Sexual Offences against Young Persons including s.47. 6 s.3 inserts s.45(1) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). 7 s.5 substitutes new s.45 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). 8 s.3(1) substitutes ages cited in s.45 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
594 Appendices and Bibliography
Penalties for sexual penetration of a child between the ages of 10 and 16 under the care, supervision or authority of the offender s.44(1) Unlawful carnal knowledge of girl Imprisonment not more of or above 10 and under the age of 16. than 10 years. s.44(1) As above but where offender is a Imprisonment not more schoolmaster or teacher and the girl is than 15 years. his pupil.
Crimes Act 19289 (Vic) s.44(2) Attempt/Assault with intent. Imprisonment 3 years. In force from 12/02/1929 s.44(2) Attempt/Assault with intent by a Imprisonment not more male schoolmaster or teacher and the than 5 years. girl is his pupil. No prosecution shall be s.47 Offence against a girl of or above 12 commenced more than 12 years. months after its commission.
Crimes Act 1957 (Vic) and Offences remain the same. Penalties remain the same. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s.48(1) Sexual penetration with a person Imprisonment not more of or above age 10 but under 16 years of than 10 years. age. s.48(2) Attempt/Assault with intent in Imprisonment not more these circumstances. than 5 years. s.48(3)(a) Sexual penetration with a Crimes person of or above age 10 but under Imprisonment not more (Sexual Offences) 16 years of age, and victim is under the 10 than 15 years. Act 1980 (Vic) care, supervision or authority of the In force from defendant. 01/03/1981 s.48(3)(b) Attempt/Assault with intent, Imprisonment not more and victim is under the care, supervision than 7 years. or authority of the defendant. No prosecution to be s.48(6) Offences committed with/upon a commenced for more than person of or above twelve years of age. twelve months after their commission. s.46(1)(a) Sexual penetration of a child Crimes aged between 10 and 16 and at time of Imprisonment 15 years. (Sexual Offences) offence child under the care, supervision for 11 Act 1991 (Vic) or authority of the defendant. In force from Imprisonment 10 years 05/08/1991 s.46(1)(b) In any other case. for [emphases added].
9 Offence does not include reference to ‘abuse’ as it does for victims aged under 10. 10 s.5 substitutes the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) relating to carnal knowledge with new Sexual Offences against Young Persons. 11 s.3 substituted new provisions in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
595 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Penalties for sexual penetration of a child between the ages of 10 and 16 under the care, supervision or authority of the offender s.45(2)(b) Sexual penetration of a child aged between 12 and 16 and at time of Imprisonment 15 years offence under the care, supervision or maximum. authority of the accused. Crimes Legislation Amendment Act s.45(2)(c) Sexual penetration of a child 12 Imprisonment 10 years 2010 (Vic) aged between and 16 [emphases 12 maximum. In force from added]. 17/03/2010 25 years imprisonment (see section above referring to Sexual penetration of a child under 12. sexual penetration of a child under age of 10).
12 s.5 substitutes ages cited in s.45 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
596 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 4—Occupational categories and child-related work in Victoria
Occupational categories under the Working with Children Check 2005 (Vic)
• Camps (all overnight camps for children). • Child care services (child care services, centre based long day care, occasional care, family day care, in home care and outside school hours care). • Child employment—Supervisors (supervision of a child in employment—where the child is under 15 years of age—pursuant to the Child Employment Act 2003 (Vic) ). • Childminding (babysitting or childminding services arranged by a commercial agency). • Child protection services. • Children’s services (that are required to be regulated under the Children’s Services Act 1996 (Vic)) including kindergartens or preschools. • Clubs & associations (clubs, associations or movements of a cultural, recreational or sporting nature). • Coaching & tuition (coaching or tuition services of any kind for children). • Counselling services (counselling or other support services for children). • Educational institutions (educational institutions for children, specifically: state Schools (including all primary, secondary, technical and special State schools) non-Government schools (including all primary, secondary and special non- Government schools) TAFE colleges and TAFE Divisions of universities providing VCE and/or Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL) subjects some adult education providers providing VCE and/or VCAL subjects other institutions providing children’s study or training programs. • Entertainment & party services (commercial entertainment or party services for children unless they are merely incidental to or in support of other business activities). • Foster Care (fostering children). • Gym or play facilities (commercial gym or play facilities for children unless they are merely incidental to or in support of other business activities). • Out of home care services (out of home care services—that are established or approved under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic)). • Paediatric wards (paediatric wards of public, private or denominational hospitals as defined in the Health Services Act 1988 (Vic)). • Photography services (commercial photography services for children unless they are merely incidental to or in support of other business activities). • Refuges (refuges or other residential facilities used by children).
597 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
• Religion (religious organisations). • School crossings (school crossing services). • Talent & beauty competitions (commercial talent or beauty competitions for children unless they are merely incidental to or in support of other business activities). • Transport (publicly funded or commercial transport services specifically for children). • Youth justice. Source: Adapted from Department of Justice Table of Occupational Categories, Working with Children Check website, Accessed 28 October 2013.
Child-related work under the Working with Children Check 2005 (Vic)
Child-related work is paid or unpaid work involving regular direct and unsupervised contact with a child when working with or caring for children in any of the occupational categories listed in the Act. You do not require a Working with Children (WWC) Check if you: • are involved in a private or domestic arrangement that exists between family and friends and where no payment is involved • participate in an activity with a child on the same basis as the child for example in the same team • supervise a student in practical training organised by their educational institution. You need to apply for and pass the WWC Check if you meet all 1-4 criteria:
1) You are engaged in child-related work as: • an employee or • a self-employed person or an independent contractor or • a volunteer or • a supervisor of child employees or • part of practical training through an educational or vocational course or • unpaid community work under a court order or • a minister of religion or performing duties of a religious vocation or • an officer of a body corporate or • a member of a committee of management of an unincorporated body or • a member of a partnership.
2) Your contact with a child is with any of the occupational categories listed in the Act. Occupational categories are not titles of people’s jobs but broad descriptions of services or places where people work with or care for children. See Occupational categories included in the Act
3) Your work involves regular direct contact with a child, who is under 18 years of age.
598 Appendices and Bibliography
• Regular contact is contact that is not incidental to but normally part of providing a service or activity for children • Direct contact with a child involves physical contact, talking face to face or within eyeshot when providing a service or activity for children.
4) Your work is not directly supervised. Direct supervision is: • immediate and personal supervision • undertaken by a person whose role is to supervise your work • does not require constant physical presence, for example a supervisor may leave the room for a short while to take a phone call. Source: Adapted from Department of Justice, What is child-related work?, Working with Children Check website, Accessed 28 October 2013.
599 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 5—Standards: Safeguarding children program and Choose with care program
Safeguarding children program
Table 5A.1: Summary of Safeguarding children standards
Standard Overview 1. A commitment to • Through its ‘safeguarding children’ statement, the safeguarding children. organisation documents its clear commitment to safeguarding children and young people from abuse and neglect. 2. Personnel roles and • The organisation ensures that each person involved conduct. in delivery of services to children and young people understands their role, and the behaviour expected in safeguarding children and young people from abuse and neglect. 3. Recruitment and screening • The organisation has appropriate measures in place practices. to minimise the likelihood of recruiting a person who is unsuitable to work with children or young people. 4. Personnel induction and • The organisation’s induction, education and training training. programs are a vital part of its commitment to safeguarding children and young people from abuse and neglect. 5. Involving children and • In developing a safe, inclusive and supportive parents. environment the organisation involves and communicates with children, young people and their parents. It encourages parental involvement and behaviour that helps to protect children and young people. 6. Child abuse reports and • The organisation has measures in place to ensure allegations. that all people who work with children and young people understand their responsibility to report possible abuse or neglect and understand the organisation’s reporting procedures. 7. Supporting a child-safe • The organisation has measures in place to ensure organisational cultures. that all people who work with children and young people understand their responsibility to report possible abuse or neglect and understand our reporting procedures.
Source: Australian Childhood Foundation, Safeguarding children, http://www.safeguardingchildren.com. au/the-program/the-seven-key-strategies.aspx, Accessed on 14 July 2013.
600 Appendices and Bibliography
Choose with care program
Table 5A.2: Summary of Choose with Care standards
Standard Overview 1. Understand child abuse. • Importance of understanding the potential risks and indicators of abuse of children. • Staff and volunteers using understanding to inform activities. 2. Develop and maintain an • Develop an open and aware culture by being aware of the open and aware culture. risks of abuse, appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, feel encouraged and safe to raise any concerns and be open to outside influence and accountability. 3. Identify and manage risks • Identify potential risks and ways children can be harmed and dangers to children in in the organisation. programs and activities. 4. Develop a Child • Implement policies and procedures to address and Protection Policy. minimise those risks through a child protection policy. 5. Create clear boundaries. • Develop a code of conduct that clearly describes appropriate behaviours in relation to children within the organisation and its activities. 6. Adopt best practice • Adopt a structured and systematic approach to in recruitment and recruitment and selection for all staff and volunteers to selection. reduce the risk of employing unsuitable people. 7. Screen all staff and • Screen all staff and volunteers need to be screened volunteers. to prevent placement of a sex offender or otherwise unsuitable candidate. 8. Support and supervise • Minimise the opportunity for child abuse by ensuring staff and volunteers. regular, formal supervision and performance monitoring. 9. Ensure there is a clear • Establish clear reporting guidelines to maintaining an complaints procedure for open and aware culture and deter offenders. reporting concerns. 10. Know your legal • Organisations have a legal and moral responsibility to responsibilities. protect children in their care and may be held liable for failure to prevent ‘foreseeable’ abuse. 11. Empower children and • Abuse is more common in organisations where children encourage participation in have no voice. A child safe organisation empowers the organisation’s program. children so they can speak of their concerns. 12. Provide education • All staff, volunteers, children and their families should and training for all be informed and educated on policies and programs to participants. ensure that risk management policies and procedures are widely understood and implemented.
Source: Child Wise, undated, Choose with Care: 12 steps to a child-safe organisation. An introduction to the Choose with Care program, Building safer organisations for children.
601 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 6—Organisation policies: Code of conduct and professional development
Codes of conduct in non-government organisations
Table 6A.1: Examples of codes of conduct relating to protecting children
Date Organisation Code name Type of code Adopted Anglican Faithfulness • a national code for personal behaviour and 2004 Church in Service the practice of pastoral ministry by clergy and church workers. • contains a chapter on children with standards, characteristics of child abuse and offenders and guidelines for ensuring children’s safety. 2002 Baptist Union Duty of Care • duty of care policy Policy • reference to needs of children, Our Church is inappropriate behaviour, responding a Safe Place to suspicions of abuse and reporting allegations of abuse. Version Berry Street Code of • outlines organisation values 2006 Victoria Conduct • refers to misconduct • makes no reference to appropriate boundaries with children. Adopted Catholic Integrity in • principles and standards for Catholic clergy 2004 Church Ministry and religious • section on concern for the dignity and safety of children and youth that outlines expectations of behaviour and understanding of child abuse. Adopted Catholic Integrity in • principles and standards for lay workers 2011 Church the Service • refers to need for church workers to of the Church understand and respect boundaries with children and to be aware of obligations in reporting suspected child abuse. Adopted Catholic May our • code of conduct for caring for children 2011 Church Children • refers to creating a positive and safe Flourish environment, appropriate behaviour for adults and promoting appropriate behaviour for children. No date Girl Guides Code of • treating young members with respect and Victoria Conduct being responsible for safety • recognition that all forms of abuse unacceptable.
602 Appendices and Bibliography
Date Organisation Code name Type of code No date Seventh Day Code of • the Code of Conduct makes it clear what Adventist Conduct practices (actions) are supported and what Church practices are not condoned • list of behaviours that are encouraged and expected of all adults who interact with children and young people • applies to everyone in the church. Revised Uniting Code of • applies to both lay and ordained people in 2010 Church Ethics and the Church Ministry • reference to the sensitivities and needs of children and appropriate behaviour.
Source: Compiled by Family and Community Development Committee based on evidence and other information provided to the Inquiry.
603 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Training and education in non-government organisations
Table 6A.2: Examples of training and education in non-government organisations
Organisation Type of training and education Anglicare • Train carers in managing challenging behaviours to prevent the use of Victoria abusive disciplinary practices in moments of stress and frustration. • Age appropriate sex education for children in care, including right to reject unwanted advances and strategies for doing so assertively. Anglican • Regular awareness training for clergy and authorised lay workers. Church • Professional standards training, including a systematic approach to training to enable clergy and church to become aware of their obligations under the code of good conduct (every 3 years). • Use of published materials to raise awareness regarding appropriate behaviour. Catholic • Training on application of code of conduct for priests, parish leaders and Church agency heads and staff of the Archdiocese. • Under the National Committee for Professional Standards, ‘a wide range of initiatives are undertaken to support professional development, community education, and awareness-raising’.13 Baptist Union • Train pastoral leaders on power relations. • All ministry leaders trained on duty of care policy. Rabbinical • Training for rabbis to raise consciousness and skill levels in becoming Council aware of and responding to allegations of child abuse. The Salvation • Provides training based on Child Safe model. Army Scouts • All approved adult leaders receive ‘comprehensive and ongoing training in Victoria dealing with children.’14 • Educational material for parents. Seventh Day • Educational and training resources including workshops on personal Adventist boundaries for ministers and students, workshops in writing child Church protection policies for local churches, in-service training in child protection for school staff. Yeshivah • Training conducted by government departments on mandatory reporting Centre and child protection. • Protective Behaviour training facilitated by the Crisis Centre for Jewish Women • Youth workers have undergone the Safeguarding Children Program delivered by the Australian Childhood Foundation. • Training for children, such as resiliency programs and age appropriate workshop on how to ‘say no’. • Parent education on child protection.
Source: Compiled by Family and Community Development Committee based on evidence and other information provided to the Inquiry.
13 Submission S185, Catholic Church in Victoria, p. 101. 14 Submission S185, Catholic Church in Victoria, p. 101.
604 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 7—Catholic Church structure
Cath. Edu. Commissioner Independent
Victorian Dioceses Compensation
Melbourne Consultative bodies Commission Victoria As Carelink Panel
at Education
National 28 Melbourne (Archbishop
October
Currently: • Handles •
Commission
Catholic Gleeson O’Callaghan Currently • Counselling • Catholic
for David Response CatholicCare
Hart)
complaints victims SC
2013.
Parishes
Mr
Australia Curtain (~300) Melbourne
QC Cath. Social 329 Peter
chaired Bishops
Australian and
and schools
Services QC
Mr Edu.
support
by Jeff
Mr Conference
Catholic (Bishop Ballarat
Professional National Resource
Director Bird) Professional Centacare Cath. Standards Parishes Towards Working
Healing 11 Group Committee 53 (50)
of
secondary Group Edu. primary
Standards Professional Pope Standards
(VIC)
Office
Victoria
for
(Bishop
Towards
Sale Currently • Appoints • Members • At • Advises • Oversees • Manages •
responding Prowse) Centacare
least
7 Cath. Director one 34
assessors,
complaints policies, Ms Secondary appointed Office
to Parishes
Towards Working Primary priest/religious Healing
Kerry Group
abuse Healing (28)
Edu.
of
principles
Buchecker Professional facilitators,
by
Bishop/leaders
(Bishop Sandhurst
person and
and Standards
procedures
and Tomlinson) contact
of ‘suitable’
organisations
people
Cath. Parishes 12 re CentaCare Sandurst 43
(40)
Secondary
Primary others Some
Religious (Catholic Edu.
of
Conference orders
Australia)
Leaders and
in Institutes Religious
Victoria not
to of
Diocesan
are
answerable Early • Villa • St •
bishops providers Lay Impaired Program Vincentcare) Society Some
Religious Vincent authority social
to Maria
Peak Education religious
the (inc.
of
service
Pope for body
Institutes Children of
Apostolic de
Diocesan
are Hearing
for Paul
answerable
leaders
and
Life
bishops
Societies
of
to
Society Faithful De Christian Marist
Oblate Loreto Examples Mercy La Sisters Sacred Salesians
Salle of Jesuits
Heart of
Companions
Jesus Brothers
the
fathers Sisters
Sisters Brothers of Heart
Brothers
the
Sacred
(orders,
of
Catholic
congregations) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Portland Bairnsdale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ and ‐ Essendon, ‐ ‐ ‐ Warnambool Wangaratta, ‐ ‐ Kyneton, North ‐ 140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jesuit Oblate Rosies Xavier Secondary Schools College, Couer Sacre Schools Schools Youth Secondary Schools Edmund Family MacKillop Schools oia College, Monivae Secondary Involved Mercy Community McAuley aKlo Family MacKillop
Mentone parish
Religious Social Melbourne, Centre College
Health Black Red (Independent) (Independent) in in: in:
Warranambool, Rice
Geelong, in
Sunbury, schools
school Schools
Ballarat,
Kilmore,
schools
LaTrobe, Services founding =
in Refugee
=
social
Youth Hawthorn &
education Brunswick
Aged
Services
in Hamilton Fitzroy, Services
in St in
in
Chadstone, Bundoora, Mulgrave Sale,
services
Mission
Victoria Glen
Bulleen,
Malvern, Kilda,
Victoria and
Services
and Geelong, Care in in
(Independent) and Benalla, Ballarat, Bendigo,
administering Iris Lilydale,
Community Colac, (multiple
Bendigo (Independent) Warragul
East for Toorak,
Ferntree Heidelberg,
Kew,
Ringwood, Toorak,
Women
Mildura,
Bentleigh
hospitals)
Services Balywn
over
Gully,
and
,
605 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 8—Anglican Church structure North General the of of Faithfulness Model Synod National Anglican National Bishop
complaints protocols
(8 Diocese of Ballarat practice Weatherill
West
on Church Parishes) Professional Bishop
Professional church
matters Register Parkes synod
of and in Deanery
relating
nlcr Hume Anglicare
pastoral Service
institutional workers of
: relating
Diocese
a
of
Standards
Australia national
to Standards
(2006) ministry the
sexual
that
to Synod
professional North Anglican structure : register ensures
the Ordinance:
misconduct
by
Commission: of (7
national
clergy
of
Ballarat East Parishes)
of Wangaratta
transparency
25 Wangaratta (as
complaints/findings
standards and
Deanery per Anglican sets for Parishes
pastoral
Melbourne makes clergy
Legislative • An • out Synod each Australia Standards
a and across code
Professional
model assembly and recommendations
workers
Standards
diocesan safe Professional
for church
Diocese) dioceses
code
of ministry personal South
and
(8 abuse
of workers.
of Parishes)
synod
for
executive Act conduct,
all Act Deanery
practices
against behaviour
the
Anglican
to
handling the
series
power
and
dioceses
remains
in
with
Note PSB ‐ ‐ ‐ protocol) Professional ‐ : urnl sCar Sargent Claire Ms Currently • •
A Synod ‐ ‐ Standards Professional of Director Bishops) Diocese A Replaced Adopted as Applies Ballarat
is on fcnatfrdslsrso abuse of disclosures for contact of point First administration Church of Independent +
parallel
well Review
as
to and in
was
by
the Episcopal
Diocesan
Diocese clergy 2011 is
Dioceses Board Wangaratta comprised
passed Power Standards
and
and Eastern
(67
employees Standards
& Wangaratta
by
non of
24 of Trust
Standards
Parishes) the Melbourne Professional (2010)
‐
Schools ordained Melbourne
Region
Melbourne of Protocol Act
Act all and
in
(and (for
PSC
2012 volunteers
ministers clergy Act (2009),
+
Director
North within Melbourne
(70 ‐ As
West ‐ Parishes)
far Receives ‐
Determines the
as
practicable Region Synod
Community governed
complaints Brotherhood nlcr Victoria Anglicare
Committee Episcopal Professional whether St Laurence
two Laurence elects Professional
against
non
clergy area
Professional Archbishop Services ‐ misconduct Church
Standards
of
church
Standards and &
Southern St
+ ‐ Board ‐ conducts
At other Standards members
(69 At lay ‐
workers
Refers least least based
Parishes)
church Standards representatives
Freier
two
Review one preliminary
matters
and
on (excludes Region
‐
‐ non ‐
non Appointed Committee
Appointed workers Appointed netgtion investigat
one ‐ ‐ Church ‐
Church to Board
An
clergy Board
police investigation Bishops)
appeal are
by
by by
members
member
member guilty (PSRB)
Bishop
Bishop or (PSC) Has • An • Bishop (PSB) of
body
diocesan
and PSB PSC
of
assembly
no
Uses Melbourne Diocese PSC & Director effective •
synods) Director Currently • Bendigo Gippsland,
of Power Eastern
(12 the
legislative Power
Protocol
five Parishes)
of Protocol
& ‐
Region dioceses
Ms Professional Trust
Applies Ms
&
power
‐ Cheryl Trust
well Claire
Adopted
Bendigo
PSC to in
DPS
as (remains 37
Victoria clergy
Russell
Diocesan Sargent Power Gippsland Parishes Western
Standards by (11
and
all
with Synod
in Parishes)
Victorian As
employees non in
and
Region at
‐ Synod ordained
Trust 28 Synod
Dioceses
October
and
ministers Protocol
volunteers of Bishop Southern Bishop in Victoria Professional
Committee the Standards (8
2003
2013. Parishes)
Province as
McIntyre
Curnow Region
Diocese of Bendigo of
Diocese of Gippsland
606 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 9—Complaint files
Introduction
In drafting this Report the Committee examined the complaint files of the following four organisations: • the Melbourne Response • Towards Healing • the Salvation Army • the Anglican Church. The Committee chose to concentrate its investigations on these non-government organisations for a number of reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of submissions received from the public related to complaints of criminal child abuse committed by clergy of the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and Salvation Army officers. Further in evidence to the Inquiry the Victoria Police advised the Committee they had undertaken internal research into the ‘reporting and handling of child sexual assault by the Catholic Church’ and a number of other organisation including the Salvation Army and the Anglican Church.15 In addition as outlined in Part F of the Report the Committee was aware that the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army and the Anglican Church all introduced internal process and procedures in their respective organisations in the last two decades to deal with complaints of criminal child abuse against members of their organisations. Evidence submitted to the Inquiry from victims, their families and victim advocacy groups indicated that the handling of past complaints was inadequate leaving many victims both angered and upset by the manner in which they were treated when they approached an organisation with a complaint against a member of their organisation. As a result the Committee decided that an examination of the complaint files was required and requested these organisations to provide the Inquiry with a representative sample of past complaint files to review. This appendix summarises the findings on each organisation’s respective complaint handling process based on its analysis on the files reviewed.
The Melbourne Response
The Committee reviewed 158 out of an estimated total of 330 Melbourne Response complaint files as provided by the Independent Commissioner. Two members of the legal research team of the secretariat reviewed the complaint files at the office of the Independent Commissioner for Melbourne Response throughout January 2013. These 158 files were chosen at random and the Committee is confident this number provides a fair and accurate representation of the Melbourne Response process for handling complaints of criminal child abuse.
15 Submission S201, Victoria Police.
607 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Towards Healing
The Committee reviewed 129 out of an estimated total of 800-900 Towards Healing complaint files. Two members of the legal research team of the secretariat reviewed the complaint files at the office of Sr Angela Ryan in Mildura from 15 to18 January 2013. Further analysis was required on the complaint files. Therefore four members of the legal research team of the Secretariat reviewed additional complaint files at the office of Sr Angela Ryan from 18 to 20 March 2013. These 129 files were chosen at random and the Committee is confident that this number provides a fair and accurate representation of the Towards Healing process for handling complaints of criminal child abuse.
The Anglican Church
The Committee reviewed 33 complaint files from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. Two members of the legal research team of the Secretariat reviewed the complaint files at the Melbourne Diocese office from 2 to 9 July 2013. Further analysis was required on the complaint files. Therefore one member of the legal research team of the secretariat returned to the Melbourne Diocese office from 5 to 7 August 2013 to further analyse the files.
The Salvation Army
The Committee reviewed 52 complaint files out of an estimated total of 474 Salvation Army complaint files. Two members of the legal research team of the Secretariat reviewed the Salvation Army’s complaint files at the offices of their law firm Nevett Ford from 22 to 27 July. The 52 files provided to the Inquiry were based on a number of restrictions the Committee placed on the Salvation Army. The file restrictions imposed by the Committee are discussed in further detail in the Salvation Army section of this appendix.
Methodology
The following section describes the method adopted by the legal research team of the secretariat in conducting its research for the Committee. The legal researchers undertook extensive evidence gathering and analysis of documents it accessed from each organisation. When reviewing the complaint files provided to the secretariat the legal researchers completed detailed worksheets with the required evidence as directed by the committee. The worksheets for each organisation varied somewhat due to the differing internal processes in place. However, the general format of the worksheets as mandated by the Committee was as follows.
608 Appendices and Bibliography
The first section collected information relating to the general nature of the complaint. The second section allowed for collection of data relating to the organisation’s handling of the complaints including methods of the first contact with the victim, investigation, confidentiality, police involvement, legal representation, compensation and counselling. The data covered all aspects of the operation of each process. On occasion information was extremely detailed so it was more practical for the legal researchers to simply draft detailed chronologies summarising the evidence available. Upon completion of the worksheets and on return to the secretariat office, the legal researchers collated the evidence into spread sheets and databases. New spread sheets and databases were devised for each organisation based on the evidence collected. The spread sheets enabled the legal researchers to summarise different points of interests so the files could be reviewed by the Committee together with extracts of relevant source documents and correspondence. In total seven legal researchers from the Secretariat undertook both quantitative and qualitative research of the evidence made available in conducting their investigations into the organisations.
Findings
A consistent review of the evidence made available was performed for each organisation in order to establish the findings of the Report. This appendix provides an overview of the each organisations complaint handling process based on the Committee’s research into the individual complaint files provided. The following aspects were examined in detail and have been summarised for the purposes of this appendix:
• analysis of complaints nature of complaints gender of victims year of complaints • findings initial contact support on initial contact legal support counselling • referral to police • investigation process • settlement process financial compensation and non-financial assistance apology deeds of settlement and release • review and appeal • confidentiality
609 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
confidentiality in process confidentiality in settlement • victim’s satisfaction with the process.
Melbourne Response
Introduction Victims are required to undergo three stages in the Melbourne Response process:
• The Independent Commissioner • Carelink • The Compensation Panel.
Complaints The Committee reviewed 158 out of an estimated total of 330 Melbourne Response complaint files. The statistics for this appendix are based on 154 files as two related to victims who phoned the office of the Independent Commissioner once and had no further involvement in the process. The other two files concerned victims who were referred to the Towards Healing process immediately on initial contact with the Independent Commissioner resulting in no further involvement with the Melbourne Response process.
Nature of complaints The majority of complaints made to Melbourne Response were as a result of sexual abuse perpetrated against victims by priests, religious and laypersons in the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. The kind of sexual abuse ranged from severe and ongoing to the less serious and one off incidents.
Gender of victims The vast majority of victims who approached the Melbourne Response process were male. Table 9A.1 provides a breakdown of the gender of victims in the 154 files reviewed.
Table 9A.1: Gender of victims—The Melbourne Response
Gender Count of victims Gender by percentage Male 120 77.9
Female 34 22.1 Total 154 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Year of complaints Although the number of complaints made to the Melbourne Response has waned over recent years, the numbers are still consistent. The examination of the files
610 Appendices and Bibliography
indicated that the peak years for complaints were 1997 and 2002. Table 9A.2 provides a breakdown of the complaint files reviewed per year.
Table 9A.2: Complaint files received by year—the Melbourne Response
Year Count of % Count of Relevant Year Relevant Year 1996 3 1.9
1997 24 15.6 1998 5 3.3 1999 14 9.1 2000 9 5.8 2001 2 1.3 2002 30 19.5 2003 5 3.2 2004 6 3.9 2005 10 6.5 2006 10 6.5 2007 8 5.2 2008 8 5.2 2009 5 3.3 2010 4 2.6 2011 2 1.3 2012 8 5.2 Unknown 1 0.6 Total 154 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Findings—initial contact The files indicate that victims approached the Melbourne Response / Independent Commissioner through a number of different avenues:
• The majority of victims contacted the Independent Commissioner directly by telephone, letter or email. • Referrals were also made by outside organisations such as the Catholic Church, Carelink, Towards Healing and victim advocacy groups such as Broken Rites.
Support provided to victim in initiating complaint Although a victim is allowed to have a support person throughout the Melbourne Response process, the file review suggests that victims were neither offered nor encouraged to do so on initiation of a complaint.
611 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Legal support In the files reviewed 33 victims were legally represented. The file review indicated that the Independent Commissioner did not always encourage victims to seek independent legal advice in relation to their complaint. Instead victims were only encouraged to obtain independent advice when: • there was a contested hearing • a victim needed more than the usual amount of support • a victim repeatedly questioned the Independent Commissioner whether they should obtain independent legal advice.
Counselling Every victim that the Independent Commissioner found in favour of was referred to Carelink for counselling.
Referral to police The investigation of the files illustrate that the Independent Commissioner did not always encourage the victim to report their abuse to the police. Of the 154 files reviewed the Committee found evidence of encouragement to go to the police in 58 files with no evidence in 93 files. It was unclear in three files whether any encouragement was given. In a number of cases there were valid reasons for the Independent Commissioner not providing a police recommendation, such as the perpetrator being dead or the police already being involved. Nonetheless 36 complaints were identified as those where there was no seemingly justifiable reason for the Independent Commissioner not recommending a referral to the police.
Investigation The Independent Commissioner performed the investigation into the complaints, and his approach varied depending on the circumstances. The investigation always involved an interview or meeting with the victim in his chambers to transcribe and verify their story. On occasion the Catholic Education Office Melbourne (CEOM) was contacted to confirm the basic facts of the case and the likely contact between the victim and the alleged perpetrator. In addition the Catholic Church was contacted to ascertain whether there were any previous allegations against the alleged perpetrator. In some cases the Independent Commissioner contacted the perpetrator to establish his position in relation to the allegation. If deemed necessary the Independent Commissioner contacted potential witnesses and the victims’ friends and family with consent. Finally if there was prior police involvement the Independent Commissioner contacted the police to investigate the complaint. The file review highlighted that at times the Independent Commissioner’s investigations were extremely detailed. However, generally judgement was made on
612 Appendices and Bibliography
a case very quickly resulting in the need for minimal investigation. The Committee found that 46 per cent of cases were determined within the first month of either a victim’s interview with the Independent Commissioner or first contact with the Melbourne Response. Of the 154 files reviewed, the Independent Commissioner found that 125 complaints were established, 25 did not proceed to the stage where a finding could be made and three were not established. The finding of one complaint is unknown.
Settlement In the files reviewed all complaints which progressed to the stage where an application for compensation could be made were referred to the Compensation Panel. Table 9A.3 provides a breakdown of referral to the Compensation Panel.
Table 9A.3: Referrals—Compensation Panel
Referral to Number of Victims % Count of Referred Compensation Panel Victims Referral 110 71.4
No referral 29 18.9 Unknown 15 9.7 Total 154 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
In evidence to the Committee the Chairperson of the Compensation Panel confirmed that the Compensation Panel has had 287 acceptances out of 290 offers that it has made thus far.16
Financial compensation and non-financial assistance The file review did not include those of the Compensation Panel though these were available. In the files reviewed where the settlement amount was known the ex-gratia settlements awards varied and payments ranged from between $15,000 at the lowest end of the scale to $50,000 at the highest end.
Apology A written apology was provided to the victim with the compensation letter of offer. It was identified in the files reviewed that many victims expressed the need for an apology from the Catholic Church either as their sole reason for approaching Melbourne Response or as an additional outcome with another form of recompense.
Deeds of Settlement and Release A Deed of Release was signed by the victim and the Archbishop of Melbourne as a condition of payment of the ex gratia settlement.
16 Transcript of evidence, Compensation Panel, Melbourne Response, Melbourne, 3 May 2013, p. 16.
613 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
The files analysis suggests that until recently victims were not encouraged to obtain independent legal advice pertaining to the effects of the deed.
Review and appeal There is no formal procedure for initiating a review of any of the Melbourne Response decisions. The file review established that in the situations where a victim requested a review or appeal the Independent Commissioner along with the Catholic Church solicitor appeared to have absolute discretion in deciding whether this should take place.
Confidentiality
Process The files illustrate that the Independent Commissioner typically stated at the initial interview, that what is said in interviews and subsequent conversations is confidential unless desired otherwise by the victim. In more recent years the Independent Commissioner, has told the victim that the contents of a contested hearing or compensation hearing are confidential, but not the fact of the abuse or (once an offer of compensation is accepted) the settlement. It was identified in the files that some victims were concerned with keeping the facts of the abuse silent. However, no cases reviewed suggested that the Independent Commissioner mislead victims into thinking that they weren’t allowed to talk about the abuse committed against them. However, it is evident that his advice was not always received exactly as intended.
Settlement The files viewed contained an application for compensation which included a confidentiality provision.
Victims’ satisfaction with process Of the 154 files reviewed six victims expressed thanks or indicated that they had a positive experience with the process, while 20 people criticised the Melbourne Response process. The Committee could not determine the satisfaction level of the remainder 128 victims from the files received from the Independent Commissioner.
614 Appendices and Bibliography
Figure 9A.1: The Melbourne response complaint process
Complaint made to Independent Commissioner (IC).
Interview: IC interviews the complainant to obtain details. IC informs the complainant that these are confidential unless he/she decides otherwise. Also informs the complainant of their right to report the matter to the police. IC may uphold the complaint at this point or conduct an investigation.
The IC may refer Investigation: IC conducts enquiries into the complaint the complainant for to obtain corroboration of the allegations. counselling by Carelink at this stage or later in the process.
IC writes to the accused setting out the allegations and awaits a response. This is rare because alleged perpetrators are often deceased, cannot be found, or have already been convicted for similar offences.
Accused accepts Accused allegations or refuses to refutes participate in process. allegations.
Hearing.
Decision by IC.
Complaint not accepted: i.e. not proven, referred to Complaint upheld. IC notifies the complainant by letter Towards Healing, complainant has dropped out of the and encloses an application form for compensation to be process, or the matter has been put on hold due to signed and returned to him. IC also refers involvement of the police or courts . the complainant to Carelink.
Carelink: a psychiatric assessment is completed for the consideration of the Compensation Panel. A treatment plan is also devised and ongoing counselling is provided as necessary.
Complainant attends Compensation Panel. The Panel make a recommendation for ex gratia compensation to the Archdiocese.
Written offer of compensation sent Written apology sent to by Archdiocese’s solicitors. Victim must victim by the Archbishop. sign and return a Deed of Release.
Complied by the Family and Community Development Committee
615 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Towards Healing
Introduction Towards Healing has three stages that a victim is required to undergo before s/he can receive any form of compensation from the Catholic Church namely:
• contact report/complaint • assessment • facilitation.
Complaints The Committee reviewed 129 out of an estimated total of 800-900 complaints files made to Towards Healing. Although the total number of files in the Towards Healing office is around 800-900, those representing complaints against perpetrators of criminal child abuse represent a number less than that. The statistics for this appendix are based on the 129 complaint files reviewed.
Nature of complaints The majority of the complaints made to Towards Healing are as a result of the sexual abuse perpetrated against victims by priests, religious and laypersons. The vast majority of complaints reviewed concern sexual abuse at different levels of seriousness, perpetrated in the 1960s and 1970s, typically in the contexts of the parish church, church schools, religious orders and orphanages.
Gender of victims The majority of victims who approached the Towards Healing were male. Table 9A.4 provides a breakdown on the gender of the victims in the 129 files reviewed.
Table 9A.4: Gender of victims—Towards Healing
Gender Number of Gender by victims percentage Male 118 91.5
Female 11 8.5 Total 129 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Timeframe of complaints The number of complaints made to Towards Healing has remained consistent since its implementation in 1996. In the files reviewed the peak year for complaints was 2002. Table 9A.5 provides a breakdown of complaint files per year.
616 Appendices and Bibliography
Table 9A.5: Complaint files received by year—Towards Healing
Year Number of Percentage of total complaints complaints reviewed 1997 1 0.8 1998 0 0.0 1999 4 3.1 2000 12 9.3 2001 2 1.6 2002 24 18.6 2003 4 3.1 2004 12 9.3 2005 4 3.1 2006 6 4.6 2007 14 10.9 2008 7 5.4 2009 8 6.2 2010 12 9.3 2011 4 3.1 Unknown 15 11.6 Total 129 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Findings—initial contact Victims approached Towards Healing in a number of ways. Generally, victims, their representative or a family member contacted the Towards Healing office by telephone, letter, or email. A number of victims were referred to Towards Healing by the Independent Commissioner for Melbourne Response, the Catholic Church or victim advocate groups such as Broken Rites.
Support provided to victim in initiating complaint The Towards Healing guidance provides documentary information regarding the process should be sent to the victim. The analysis of the files illustrate the documentation was sent to less than half of the victims. Upon initial contact with Towards Healing a contact person should be appointed. The analysis of the files indicated that a contact person was appointed for 96 of the 129 victims. A total of eight victims disagreed with their final contact report as drafted by the contact person. In addition a number of victims criticised the level of involvement by contact persons after the contact report stage was completed. In the files reviewed
617 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
very rarely did a contact person assist the victim after the initial stage, except to occasionally explain a finding in a later stage of the process.
Legal support From the analysis of the files it is known that:
• 64 victims were legally represented • 40 victims were definitely not represented • 25 victims-the situation is unknown.
Counselling The analysis of the files indicate that counselling was provided to victims intermittently and where counselling was provided victims had little control over the counsellor or the type of therapy they received. In addition counselling was typically for five sessions at a time and in the files reviewed only six victims received ten or more counselling sessions paid for by Towards Healing. Any settlement sums through facilitation included the cost of future counselling.
Referral to police In the files reviewed it was difficult to reach a definite figure regarding police referrals made by Towards Healing. However, the files revealed that police were directly involved at some stage in approximately 49 of the complaint files reviewed. In respect of the other 80 files the police were not involved or their involvement was unknown.
Investigation In the files reviewed an assessment into the complaint did not always take place. Of the 129 files reviewed, 43 cases were assessed. In 55 cases, the assessment was bypassed or had records which erroneously did not include the assessment report. The remaining 31 cases were either dropped, or had records missing. Of the 39 known cases where a finding was made, 44 per cent were found to be substantiated while 56 per cent were found to be unsubstantiated.
Settlement Of the files reviewed 82 cases proceeded to the facilitation stage. In a small number of cases a facilitation meeting took place even when a complaint was found to be unsubstantiated. If a victim’s claim was found to be unsubstantiated they were referred to a pastoral meeting. The files indicated that the Director of Professional Standards typically nominated the facilitator with little input from either the Church Authority or the victim. Facilitators varied in practice—some conducted informal pre-facilitation meetings, some wrote the victim with information as to what to expect though the majority did not.
618 Appendices and Bibliography
Facilitations were attended by the victim, a support person (if applicable), the Church authority and the facilitator. On occasion lawyers for the Catholic Church were in attendance as were representative from Catholic Church Insurance. Analysis of the files suggests that facilitation involves negotiation of an ex-gratia payment in exchange for the victim signing a Deed of Release extinguishing any future claims against the Catholic Church. File records on facilitations were frequently incomplete. When Towards Healing did receive notification from the facilitator on settlements, there was often a lack of detail regarding what had transpired and the terms of the settlement agreed. The Director did not routinely request information regarding the facilitation result. In Towards Healing files it was only possible to determine whether a settlement was reached in 54 cases. In addition the financial terms of the settlements were only documented in 34 of these 54 cases.
Financial compensation and non-financial assistance As indicated above the Committee could only find evidence of a financial settlement in 34 cases. Factors such as the Catholic Church Insurance involvement or whether the victim was legally represented appeared to influence the level of compensation awarded to victims. The average ex gratia compensation award for represented victims was $82,872 as opposed to $29,625 in cases where a victim was not legally represented. Similarly in the cases the Catholic Church Insurances were known to be involved, the average settlement was $60,424 as opposed to $32,817 in non-Catholic Church Insurance settlements. Due to poor records re facilitation it is uncertain if these figures provide an accurate representation of the disparity in the settlements in Catholic Church Insurance settlements and legal representation settlements.
Apology The apologies were generally in the form of an oral apology but victims were offered a written apology also. The files indicate that the apologies were well received by victims.
Deeds of Release and Settlement Although victims have always been required to sign a Deed of Release in exchange for the ex gratia compensation payment there was no mention of its condition until recently and there is no evidence that victims were encouraged to obtain independent legal advice pertaining to the effects.
Review and appeal Of the 129 files reviewed, there was evidence of a review being requested in seven cases.
619 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Of the seven cases reviewed, two changed from unsubstantiated to substantiated. In four of the cases the assessor’s finding was maintained and one case was placed on hold because of police involvement.
Confidentiality
Process Confidentiality was an important part of the Towards Healing for each part of the process.
Settlement There is insufficient evidence in the files reviewed to determine the extent of a confidentiality clause if any in the Deed of Release.
Victims’ satisfaction with the process It was not possible to determine the victims’ overall satisfaction with the process. In 16 cases victims were satisfied with the outcome but the files indicate that 22 victims were dissatisfied with the process. The Committee could not determine victim’s satisfaction with the Towards Healing process in the remainder of the files.
620 Appendices and Bibliography
Figure 9A.2: Towards Healing complaint process
Complaint made to Director of Professional Standards.
Director sends Director appoints contact person who meets complainant a copy of with the complainant and takes a preliminary Contact report sent to the Towards Healing (TH) account of the matter. Contact person informs the the Church Authority for guidelines and a copy of complainant of their right to notify the police and consideration. the contact report. the complainant confirms this is understood.
Counselling may be arranged by Director at this Church Authority Church Authority stage or later in accepts complaint. disputes complaint. the process.
Director appoints two assessors to investigate the complaint in detail and reach a finding.
Assessors Assessors find complaint do not find substantiated. complaint substantiated.
Complainant attends psychiatric assessment if matter is covered by the Church Authority’s public liability insurance. This evidence is used by the Church to assess damage caused by the abuse.
Facilitation Meeting: this is a facilitated discussion between the Church Authority, complainant, and their representatives, with the objective of negotiating an agreement on how to remedy the abuse. Typical remedies include payment of ex gratia compensation, an apology, arrangement of counselling, and pastoral interaction. The complainant must sign a Deed of Release at the meeting, or shortly thereafter, in order to receive payment of ex gratia compensation.
A pastoral meeting is offered by the Church Authority to facilitate healing.
Complaint concluded.
Review: Complainant, respondent, or Church Authority may request review on the bases that the TH guidelines have not been properly followed or the TH principles, such as humility or healing, have not been adhered to. Reviewer reports to National Review Panel which makes recommendations.
Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee
621 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
The Salvation Army
Introduction Over 99 per cent of complaints that the Salvation Army has received to date are from care leavers who spent time in Salvation Army homes during their childhood.17 The complaints process was handled either internally by the Salvation Army or externally by their legal firm Nevett Ford. The analysis of the files indicates that the vast majority of complaints were handled by Nevett Ford. In a letter dated the 27 June 2013 the Committee requested the Salvation Army provide the Inquiry with 10 internal complaint files and 40 complaint files handled by Nevett Ford. The Inquiry received 8 internally handled complaint files and 42 handled by Nevett Ford. In addition the Committee requested a sample of complaint files from a number of different Salvation Army homes spanning a number of decades. The Salvation Army complied with this request and provided files relating to seven homes (one of these homes was a correctional institutional facility) spanning from the 1930s to the 1980s. If the complaint was upheld, the Salvation Army agreed to enter into negotiation with the victim to try to resolve the complaint.
Complaints The Committee reviewed 52 out of 474 Salvation Army complaint files. Two complaint files related to criminal child abuse that did not occur in Victoria and are therefore outside the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. The statistics for this appendix are based on 50 complaint files.
Nature of the complaints The complaints directed at the Salvation Army are as a result of the sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The files revealed that abuse was perpetrated by staff members, cottage parents, holiday parents, visitors, relief workers, teachers and co-residents. An analysis of the files indicated that 74 per cent of victims were sexually abused at different levels of seriousness whilst in the care of the Salvation Army. 94 per cent of victims endured physical abuse some of it akin to torture during their time in a Salvation Army home. The examination of the files highlighted that the majority of the criminal child abuse occurred within Salvation Army homes and cottages but there were accounts of abuse in non-Salvation Army home contexts such as trips away with unsupervised visitors and holiday parents.
Gender of victims In the files reviewed the vast majority of victims who approached the Salvation Army with a complaint were male. Table 9A.6 provides a breakdown on the gender of the victims in the 50 files reviewed.
17 In total the Salvation Army has received 477 complaint files of which 470 relate to care leaver’s claims and the other 4 are non-care leaver’s claims.
622 Appendices and Bibliography
Table 9A.6: Gender of victims—Salvation Army
Gender Count of Gender by victims percentage Male 39 78.0
Female 11 22.0 Total 50 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Timeframe of complaints The number of complaints directed at the Salvation Army has fluctuated over the years with 2006, 2007 and 2009 being peak year for complaints. Table 9A.7 provides a breakdown of the complaint files reviewed by the Committee per year.
Table 9A.7: Complaint files received by year—Salvation Army
Year Number of Percentage of total complaints complaints reviewed 2003 1 2.0 2004 2 4.0 2005 1 2.0 2006 11 22.0 2007 10 20.0 2008 7 14.0 2009 10 20.0 2010 5 10.0 2011 2 4.0 2012 1 2.0 Total 50 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Although the care leaver’s complaint process was introduced in 1997 the Salvation Army did not provide the Committee with a complaint file prior to 2003.
Findings—initial contact The files indicate that victims approached the Salvation Army with a complaint in a number of ways:
• Self-represented victims through phone or letter. Four of these complaints were passed to Nevett Ford for handling and the Salvation Army managed seven internally. • The majority of victims initiated their complaint through a legal representative who contacted Nevett Ford.
623 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
• If a legal representative contacted the Salvation Army directly, the Salvation Army forwarded the complaint to Nevett Ford for handling. In the files reviewed the Salvation Army handled one represented victim internally.
Support provided to victim in initiating complaint Although the majority of victims are represented in the complaints process the Salvation Army does not provide a support person to assist a victim. There was no evidence in the files that the Salvation Army provided a copy of the complaints process/policy to self-represented victims.
Legal support The examination of the files indicated that 39 victims out of 50 were legally represented throughout the complaints process. Nevett Ford handled four self-represented complaints and each were informed of their right to obtain legal advice to assist with the complaint process. Of the seven self-represented complaints handled by the Salvation Army internally two victims were informed of their right to obtain independent legal advice, though there is no evidence on the files to suggest the other five received that information.
Counselling The review of the files indicated that minimal counselling was offered to victims. In a letter to the Committee dated the 17 July 2013 Nevett Ford stated that unrepresented victims are offered reasonable counselling generally lasting 10 sessions prior to compensation being paid out. A review of the files did not reflect this. Of the 11 unrepresented victims only two received counselling prior to the ex gratia payment and only six sessions were approved in respect of each victim. Instead the provision for future counselling is included in the ex gratia payment awarded to victims and it is then at the victims discretion whether they want to continue their counselling.18 There was only evidence of one victim receiving an award of counselling separate from the ex-gratia settlement payment.
Referral to police There was no evidence in the files reviewed recommending victims to report their abuse to the police.
Investigation Very little investigation is performed into a complaint. Of the 50 files reviewed 48 claims were upheld and an ex gratia settlement payment negotiated with the victim. One complaint was dismissed as the Salvation Army did not believe the credibility of the claim and the other ceased because the victim could no longer engage in the process.
18 Letter from Nevett Ford to the Chair of the Family and Community Development Committee dated the 17 July 2013.
624 Appendices and Bibliography
Settlement The primary objective of the Salvation Army’s complaint process is to arrange for the payment of an ex gratia payment to victims who were found to have been abused during their time in a Salvation Army home. The files revealed that a number of settlements managed by the Salvation Army were conducted by means of letters and telephone calls with no actual face–to–face meeting. When a meeting did take place this occurred at the Salvation Army headquarters. The Salvation Army dealt with the bulk of self-represented victims themselves, including settlement negotiations. The disparity in ex gratia settlements handled by the Salvation Army as opposed to those handled by Nevett Ford is examined below. As the vast majority of victims were legally represented Nevett Ford handled the settlement conferences. Representatives from the Salvation Army did not attend these settlement conferences.
Financial compensation and non-financial assistance An ex gratia payment was awarded to each victim who the Salvation Army or Nevett Ford found to have been abused—The average ex gratia payment was $23,000. Settlements handled by the Salvation Army were significantly lower than those handled by Nevett Ford. A breakdown of the settlement average is as follows: • Overall average—$23,000 • Settlements handled by Nevett Ford—$24,500 • Settlements handled by the Salvation Army—$15,500. Overall the amounts paid by the Salvation Army were modest and victims viewed the sums with mixed emotions. The file review indicated that many victims settled for less than initially requested and a couple of victims have contacted the Salvation Army in recent years to express their dissatisfaction at the modest amounts awarded to them.
Apology A written apology was provided to victims at the conclusion of the settlement process and after the Deed of Release was signed by the victim. The file analysis illustrated that the apologies provided to the victims were generic in nature and were signed by either the Secretary for Personnel or the Assistant Secretary for Personnel. Additionally if Nevett Ford handled the complaint, there was no interaction between the Salvation Army and the victim. Instead Nevett Ford organised that the ‘standard apology’ to be sent to the victim on Salvation Army letterhead. Although the apologies provided to victims were quite generic the file review revealed that there was a long and short version. The language adopted for the short version was less guarded and only contained the phrase ‘what you say occurred’ once. The long version is extremely guarded and legalistic in nature and phrases such as ‘what you say occurred’ or ‘what you say you suffered’ are found throughout the text of the apology. Generally the apologies did not acknowledge sexual abuse had occurred and instead categorised the abuse as mistreatment.
625 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Deeds of Release and Settlement A Deed of Release was signed by the victim and an authorised representative of the Salvation Army as a condition of the ex-gratia payment. Not all the Deeds of Release were identical but all denied liability for the criminal child abuse suffered and settled any potential legal claim(s) that the victim could have had against the Salvation Army in the future. In the files reviewed 35 per cent of the Deeds of Release contained a confidentiality clause restricting disclosure on the facts and terms of the deed to any person including the media. The analysis of the files suggests that unrepresented victims were not specifically encouraged to obtain independent legal advice in relation to the effects of the Deed. However, as indicated above the majority of the victims were legally represented.
Review and appeal The Salvation Army does not have a review or an appeals process in place if a victim is unhappy with the settlement of their complaint.
Confidentiality
Process No information about advice regarding confidentiality relating to the process.
Settlement Just over 35 per cent of the Deeds of Release reviewed contained a confidentiality clause which restricted the victim from disclosing the fact and terms of the settlement.
Victim’s satisfaction with the process It was not possible to determine victim’s overall satisfaction level. Three victims were satisfied with the outcome of the process and sent thank you cards/letters. However, three complaints voiced their anger and criticised the process.
626 Appendices and Bibliography
Figure 9A.3 The Salvation Army’s complaint process
Complaint made to The Salvation Army (TSA) Complaint made to Nevett Ford (NF)
TSA may refer the complaint to NF NF informs TSA of the complaint and requests any records of for handling or choose to handle complainant. NF will request a copy of complaint’s statutory declaration the complaint internally. and any medical or psychiatric record if not already provided.
TSA decide whether to meet the complainant NF meets the complainant and their or have complainant provide details by letter. representative to discuss the complaint.
Investigation: The validity of the claim is assessed by verifying the complainant’s presence in the home, checking the details of any named officers and checking whether there are any known complaints against other people in the complaint.
Complaint Complaint upheld not upheld
TSA make a preliminary decision as to settlement payment or NF provides TSA with a recommended payment settlement. TSA confirms maximum amount they will settle for.
Settlement Conference: TSA or NF meet with the complainant and negotiate settlement offer.
Deed of Release signed and written apology provided to complainant.
Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee
627 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
The Anglican Church
Introduction A complaint received in the Anglican Church involves the Director of Professional Standards, who co-ordinates for the victim each step in the process.
Complaints The Committee reviewed 33 professional standards complaint files from the Diocese of Melbourne. The statistics for this appendix are based on 32 files as one of the complaint files did not relate to criminal child abuse.
Nature of the abuse The complaints directed at the Anglican Church had a sexual element and varied in the severity of allegations. The files revealed that criminal child abuse was perpetrated by clergy, lay volunteers and church employees. The complaints arose from situations in parishes, youth groups, and a school.
Gender of the victims In the files reviewed the majority of victims who approached the Anglican Church with a complaint were male. Table 9A.8 provides a breakdown on the gender of the victims in the 32 files reviewed.
Table 9A.8: Gender of victims—Anglican Church
Gender Count of Gender by victims percentage Male 23 71.9
Female 9 28.1 Total 32 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Timeframe of complaints In the files reviewed the number of complaints directed at the Anglican Church has fluctuated over the years. Table 9A.9 provides a breakdown of the complaint files reviewed by the Committee per year.
628 Appendices and Bibliography
Table 9A.9: Complaint files received by year—Anglican Church
Year Number of Percentage of total complaints complaints reviewed 2002 2 6.25 2003 6 18.75 2004 4 12.50 2005 5 15.62 2006 3 9.38 2007 4 12.50 2008 0 0.00 2009 2 6.25 2010 0 0.00 2011 3 9.38 2012 0 0.00 2013 3 9.38 Total 32 100.0
Source: Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee.
Findings—initial contact The files indicate that the victim made contact in a number of ways:
• directly to the Director of Professional Standards by telephone, letter, and e-mail by them or their legal representative • phoning the Diocese’s professional standards free-phone number and leaving a message • through clergy making complaints or passing on complaints received from the community.
Support provided to victim in initiating complaint On receipt of a complaint the Director of Professional Standards, appoints a Professional Support Person. In the files reviewed the Professional Support Persons were psychologists who were responsible for assisting the victim by providing counselling, explaining the process, explaining what outcomes were possible, and clarifying what the victim wished to achieve by making their complaint. They also provided the Director of Professional Standards with a professional assessment of victims’ ongoing needs. Complaints were treated as confidential until the victim provided informed consent to proceed with a formal complaint.
629 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Legal Support The diocese did not arrange to provide victims with legal representation or advice. It is unclear from the files if there was any level of encouragement to do so.
Counselling The Director of Professional Standards appointed a Professional Support Person in the vast majority of cases where it was appropriate. Generally the Director authorised between two and four sessions of preliminary counselling. Whether or not a matter proceeded to a formal complaint did not affect whether a victim could access continued support from their Professional Support Person. Moreover, this did not affect whether the Director of Professional Standards offered professional support to family members. The Diocese usually appointed Respondent Carers to provide support to respondents to complaints. Respondents also had access to counselling delivered by Professional Support Persons’ if required.
Referral to police The Protocol contained provisions relating to reporting to the Police, namely that when information is received suggesting that a serious indictable offence may have been committed it is incumbent on the Director of Professional Services to notify the Police. The reality was that the Diocese’s approach to the issue of reporting was flexible. The Director of Professional Services gave encouragement and assistance to those who wished to report, but there was no report to the police if the victim did not consent. The files suggested that the Director of Professional Standards respected victims’ confidentiality by discussing cases with the police without providing information which would identify the victim. Complaints were not reported when the respondent was dead or victims had previously reported to the police. There was evidence that occasionally the Diocese made an internal decision not to report a matter. There were a substantial number of cases where there was no evidence that the issue of reporting had been considered. Due to the often complex context of complaints, it was often unclear whether those that were not reported in fact should have been reported. Overall, the evidence showed that the Diocese had approached the issue in an inconsistent manner.
Investigation Of the complaints investigated, 84 per cent were substantiated and 16 per cent were unsubstantiated. The vast majority of investigations were fair and rigorous.
Settlement The Director of Professional Standards handled settlement of complaints except in one instance when the matter was settled by legal representatives. The Director generally sought to negotiate a settlement directly with the victim or through their solicitors.
630 Appendices and Bibliography
Negotiations took place at meetings between the parties, through correspondence, and through telephone conversations. At meetings, in addition to the Director of Professional Standards and victim, parties such as the Registrar of the Diocese, a victim’s legal representative, their support person and the investigator might be in attendance. There was no evidence that the church’s legal representatives attended such meetings.
Compensation and non-financial assistance The sums paid were not generous. The church did not actively raise the issue of compensation but only offered money when victims requested it. The sums offered were not commensurate to the abuse but appeared to be calculated on the basis of what a victim was thought likely to accept. This led to inconsistencies in the sums paid to different victims. However, the church appeared to adopt a non-adversarial approach to negotiations and generally agreed to pay when asked to do so by victims. Settlement normally also included an offer to provide continued access to counselling. Settlement could also include alternative remedies suggested by the victim such as the publication of an article about the abuse or overseas travel.
Apology An apology normally formed part of the settlement. This was delivered by senior personnel in the Diocese either in person or in writing.
Deed of Settlement and Release Each of the nine victims who received a financial settlement had to execute a Deed of Release. It is difficult to draw comprehensive conclusions about these documents because a copy of the deed was not always on file and the researchers often did not record the clauses in full.
Review and appeal Neither victims nor respondents had a right of appeal prior to introduction of the Professional Standards Act in 2010. The limited evidence available regarding this process suggested that while on the one hand it was fair and thorough, on the other hand it was also alarmingly onerous, legalistic and slow, and moreover was regarded as such by participants and the Diocese.
Confidentiality
Process Complaints were treated as confidential between the victim and Director of Professional Standards until the victim provided his or her informed consent.
631 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Settlement When financial settlements were agreed the victim had to execute a Deed of Release which sometimes contained a confidentiality clause. The limited evidence available indicated that these could be stringent and bar the victim from discussing the claim, sum agreed, terms of settlement, or any information concerning the settlement negotiations.
Victims’ satisfaction with the process Although the Committee was not able to determine exact victim satisfaction levels, the file review indicated that generally victims were satisfied with the response of the Melbourne Anglican Church.
632 Appendices and Bibliography
Figure 9A.4: Anglican Diocese of Melbourne complaint process
Complaint made to Director
Child in need of protection/conduct Director must report No amounts to serious criminal offence? matter to the Police or Child Protection Service. Complainant informed. No
Director explains the formal and Complainant referred to If the matter involves a Matter informal processes available and Professional Support Person lesser criminal offence the reported seeks written consent from the for support as required, Director may report it to complainant to proceed with e.g. counselling to the Police. Police/CPS complaint.
The Professional Standards Committee (PSC) conducts an investigation of the complaint. Before completion of the investigation the Director informs the complainant and respondent in writing of the substance of the proposed recommendations and findings. The complainant and respondent are then given a reasonable time to respond in writing. The PSC then completes a final report and refers the matter to the Professional Standards Board (PSB) for determination.
The PSB considers the matter and makes a determination and recommendations. If the determination is adverse to the respondent the Director informs that party of their right to apply to the Professional Standards Review Board (PSRB) for reconsideration or that they can address submissions to the Church Authority.
Complaint Complaint upheld not upheld
PSC and Respondent can seek reconsideration of the PSB’s determination by applying to the PSRB. The Director notifies the complainant and respondent that they may make further submissions to the PSRB.
Church Authority decides whether to give effect to the recommendations of the PSB or PSRB.
Compiled by the Family and Community Development Committee
633 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 10—Files from Catholic organisations
Introduction In addition to the files referred to Appendix 9, in drafting this Report the Committee was provided with copies of or access to internal complaint files of the following organisations:
• Melbourne Archdiocese • Ballarat Diocese • Christian Brothers • Hospitaller Order of St John of God • Salesians of don Bosco.
Melbourne Archdiocese The Committee was provided with copies of internal complaint “red” files in respect of the following:
1) Father Ronald Pickering
2) Father Desmond Gannon
3) Father Michael Glennon
4) Father Victor Rubeo
5) Father Kevin O’Donnell
6) Father Peter Chalk
7) Father Peter Searson
8) Father Paul Pavlou
9) Father William Baker. In addition copies of 2 files were provided:
1) Archdiocese of Melbourne Special Issues Committee Correspondence 1988–1989
2) Victorian Professional Standards Resource Group Minutes 1993–1996 & Correspondence 1991–1994
Ballarat Diocese The Committee was provided with copies of 115 files. These files were categorised as follows: • Father Gerald Ridsdale Pre 1997—30 complaints • Father Gerald Ridsdale Post 1997—29 complaints • other clergy in the Ballarat Diocese—39 complaints.
634 Appendices and Bibliography
Internal complaint files regarding:
1) Father Robert Claffey
2) Father John Day
3) Father Paul David Ryan (x2)
4) Father Leonard Monk
5) Father Sydney Morey
6) Father Daniel O’Brien
7) Father Bryan Coffey
8) Father Gerald Ridsdale (x3)
9) Father Denis Ryan
10) Father John Slater
11) Father Leslie Sheehan
12) Father James Tung.
Christian Brothers Three (3) members of the legal research team of the Secretariat viewed archive material of the Christian Brothers at the Treacy Centre, Parkville on 29 January 2013, 5 February 2013 and 7 February 2013. In addition to archive material relating to Visitation Reports and other internal documents, complaint files in respect of the following Christian Brothers were also examined and where requested, copies provided:
1) Brother Robert Best
2) Brother Ted Dowlan
3) Brother William Houston
4) Brother Gerald Fitzgerald
5) Brother Peter Toomey
6) Brother Stephen Farrell
7) Brother Rex Elmer
8) Brother John Coswello.
635 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Salesians of Don Bosco The Committee was provided with copies of 69 files categorised as follows: • Post 1996—45 complaint files • Between 1980–1996—4 complaint files. Internal complaint files regarding:
1) Father John Ayers
2) Father Robert Bossini
3) Father Caeser Cesarini
4) Father Gregory Chambers
5) Brother Gregory Coffey (Coffin)
6) Father Frank De Dood
7) Brother Evaristus Fantin
8) Father Julian Fox
9) Brother Reg Hamilton
10) Father Kelly Kam
11) Father Frank Klep
12) Father Anthony Moester
13) Brother Stephen Poore
14) Brother Stanley Rossato
15) Brother Hans Snel
16) Brother Peter Swain
17) Brother Laurence Sweeney
18) Brother Paul Van Ruth
19) Father Michael Auselbrook
20) Father David Rapson.
Hospitaller Order of St John of God The Committee was provided with copies of 29 complainant files, some of whom made a complaint against more than one Brother. These files related to complaints against the following:
1) Brother Berchmans—9 complainants
2) Brother Beade—4 complainants
636 Appendices and Bibliography
3) Brother Eugene—6 complainants
4) Brother Gabriel—4 complainants
5) Brother Edward
6) Brother Denis—6 Complainants
7) Brother Kieran
8) Brother Aloysius
9) Brother Finbar
10) Brother Matthew—3 complainants
11) Brother Norbert
12) Brother Leo—6 complainants
13) Brother Theophane
14) Brother Thaddeus
15) Brother Daniel—2 complainants
16) Brother Damien
17) Brother Ephram
18) Brother Camillus
19) Brother Basil
20) Brother Robert
21) Brother Justin
22) Brother Ignatius
23) Brother Ambrose
24) Brother Raphael.
** 3 complainants were unable to identify the Brother who was the subject of complaint In reviewing the files provided by the different organisations the Secretariat researchers provided relevant material to the Committee to assist in the preparation of the Report.
637 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 11—Examples of correspondence: Non-government organisations
Apology letter—the Salvation Army
638 Appendices and Bibliography
Apology letter—the Melbourne Response
639 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Compensation letter—the Melbourne Response
640 Appendices and Bibliography
641 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 12—List of submissions
Submission No. Name of submitter 1 Commission of Inquiry Now (COIN) 1A – 1O Supplementary submissions 2 Ms Michelle Pedersen 3 Ms Brenda Coughlan 3A -3B Supplementary submissions 4 Mr Robert Haebich 5 Ms Valda Lang 6 Mr Max Wallace, Executive Member, Humanist Society of Queensland 7 Ms Maryke Kendall 8 Mr Bruce Rogers 9 Confidential 10 Confidential 11 Australian Lawyers Alliance 12 Mr Peter Guild 13 Name withheld 13A – 13B Name withheld supplementary submissions 14 Ms Alana Vrolijks 15 Professor Patrick Parkinson AM, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney 16 Confidential 17 Ms Betty Coleman 17A Supplementary submission 18 Ms Alma Gardner 19 Ms Maria Ann Kolovrat 20 Ms Lynn Meyers 21 Ms Elyse Burns 22 Confidential 23 Mr Ian O’Meara 24 Mr Paul McHenry 25 Forgotten Australians Justice Committee 26 Mr Wayne Miller (aka Laird) 27 Ms Lorraine McDonagh 28 Mr Michael Crowe 29 Mr Stephen Gough 30 Confidential
642 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 31 Mr Robert Stove 32 Confidential 33 Dr Barry Coldrey 33A – 33B Supplementary submissions 34 Confidential 35 Mr Garry Harrison 36 Mrs Margaret Quilligan 37 Mr & Mrs Anthony & Chrissie Foster 37B Supplementary submission 38 Confidential 39 Ms Alison Ryan 40 Mr Greg Jones 41 Ms Annie Keil-Taggart 41A – 41C Supplementary submissions 42 Mr Alistair Parr 43 Mr Thao Huynh 43A Supplementary submission 44 Confidential 45 Confidential 46 Mr Danny Buckley 47 Confidential 48 Mr Douglas Fenwick 49 Confidential 50 Name withheld 51 Ms Amelia Smith 51A Supplementary submission 52 Mr Ray Shingles 53 Confidential 54 Mr Alfred Stirling 55 Mr Richard Oakes 56 Ms Janice Dwyer 57 Mr Ian Lawther 57A - B Supplementary submissions 58 Ms Carmel Rafferty 58A Supplementary submission 59 Confidential 60 Mr Simon Czarnecki-Sindl
643 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 61 Dr Steven Middleton 62 Mr Bruce Cooke 63 Ms Marita van Gemert 64 Name withheld 65 Mr Kevin Houlihan 66 Ms Katie Foster 67 Mr Andrew Collins 68 Reverend Donald McLean 69 Ms Fiona Ferguson 70 Ms Angela Byron 71 Ms Dianne Hadden 72 Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, Law & Advisory Committee 73 Mr Philip Nagle 74 Mrs Jennifer Howe 74A – 74C Supplementary submissions 75 Confidential 76 Ms Mairead Ashcroft 77 Confidential 78 Mr Russell Clark 79 Ms Jennifer Jacomb 80 Mrs Carolyn Taylor 81 Name withheld 82 Confidential 83 Ms Eileen Piper 84 Girl Guides Victoria 85 Confidential 86 Jewish Taskforce Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault Inc. 87 Ms Yvette Parr 88 Mr Stanley Bourke 89 Confidential 90 Mrs Varlie Fifis 91 Ms Margaret Finn 92 Ms Joan Finn 93 Ms Val Flynn 94 Mr Hugh McGowan 94A Supplementary submission 95 Advisory Committee to South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault (SWCASA)
644 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 96 Name withheld 97 Ms Meachel Smeets 98 Confidential 99 Mrs Margaret Harrod 100 WINGS 100A Supplementary submission 101 Father Paul Walliker 102 Mr Robert Dumsday 103 Dr Tom Keating 104 Mr Phil O’Donnell 105 Mr Frank Golding 106 Mr Michael Keane 106A Supplementary submission 107 Mr Noel Gregory 108 Ms Cheryl Turner 109 Confidential Professor Desmond Cahill, OAM, Intercultural Studies, School of Urban and Social 110 Studies, RMIT University 111 Confidential 112 Ms Gabrielle Short 113 Mr Joseph Edison 114 Mr Terry O’Brien 115 Ms Wendy Dyckhoff (Eldridge) 116 Name withheld 116A Name withheld supplementary submission 117 Mr Rob Brown 118 Mr Keith Broadbent 119 Confidential 120 Confidential 121 Children’s Protection Society 122 Ms Lauren Van Dyke 123 Confidential 124 Ms Brenda Hodge 125 Ms Rebecca Skinner 126 Mr Ian Whitehead 127 Ms Mary Brownlee 128 Confidential
645 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 129 Mrs Monique Boutet 130 Confidential 131 Confidential 132 Confidential 133 Confidential 134 Confidential 135 Ms Lori Hodgson 136 Mr Thomas Ellis 137 Mrs Suzanne James 138 Rabbinical Council of Victoria 139 Name withheld 140 Confidential 141 Mr Tony Paul 142 Mr Jason & Ms Jan Van Dyke 143 Mr Lloyd Anderson 144 Confidential 145 Confidential 146 Anglicare Victoria 147 Mr Philip Mobbs 148 Mr Manny Waks 148A Supplementary submission 149 Mr Tony Hamilton 150 Mr John Skewes 151 Confidential 152 Confidential 153 Ms Glenda Blenkiron 154 Mr Gregory Malcher 155 Buddhist Council of Victoria Inc 156 Mr Brian Cherrie 157 Confidential 158 Ms Helen Watson 159 Ms Jacquie Browne 160 MacKillop Family Services 161 Ms Patmalar Ambikapathy 162 Mr Steven Unthank 162A – 162B Supplementary submissions 163 Mr Terry Dean
646 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 164 Uniting Church of Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania 165 Wesley Mission Victoria 166 Who am I? Project, University of Melbourne 167 Ms Dawn Watt 168 Confidential 169 Ms Stena Keys 170 Ms Terre Slattery 171 Name withheld 172 Mr Peter Murphy 173 Ms Donna Brown 174 Mr Allan Lawrie 175 Ms Susan Lawrie 176 Ms Margaret Turnbull 177 Confidential 178 Confidential 179 Name withheld 180 Ms Barbara Dickson 181 Ms Rebecca Honor 182 Confidential 183 Confidential 184 Confidential 185 Catholic Church in Victoria 185A – 185C Supplementary submissions 186 Mr Raymond D’Brass 187 Dr Peter Lazzari 188 Ms Robin Henderson 188A Supplementary submission 189 Mr Mark Fabbro 190 Father Joe McMahon 191 Mr James Boyle 191A Supplementary submission 192 Name withheld 192A Name withheld supplementary submission 193 Lewis Holdway Lawyers 194 Ms Cara Beed 195 Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers 195A – 195B Confidential
647 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 196 Mr Lewis McCabe 197 Ballarat Open Place Social and Support Group 198 Mr Daryl Suckling 198A – 198B Supplementary submissions 199 Mrs Bernadette Veyt 200 Scouts Australia, Victorian Branch 200A Supplementary submission 201 Victoria Police 202 Office of Child Safety Commissioner 203 Waller Legal 203A Supplementary submission 204 Confidential 205 Catholics for Renewal Inc 205A Supplementary submission 206 Jesuit Social Services 207 Ms Ann Ryan 208 South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (CASA) Records & Information Management Professionals Association of Australasia 209 (RIMPA) 209A - B Supplementary submissions 210 Baptist Union of Victoria 210A Supplementary submission 211 Name withheld 212 Ms Maree Jefcott 213 Confidential 214 Mrs Jillianne Mather 215 Miss Debra Lowe 216 Ms Phyllis Cremona 217 Ms Helen Myers 218 Broken Rites (Australia) Collective Inc 218A Supplementary submission 219 Mr Christopher Richey 220 Confidential 221 Mr John Brown 222 Confidential 223 Mr Kevin Adlard 224 Australian Childhood Foundation
648 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 225 Anglican Diocese of Wangaratta 226 Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) 226A Supplementary submission 227 Ms Carol Graydon 228 Mr & Mrs Brian and Ruth Lane 228A Supplementary submission 229 Withdrawn 230 Mr Tim Lane 231 Confidential 232 Confidential 233 Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) 233A Supplementary submission 234 Mr Glenn Davies 235 Name withheld 236 Miss Catherine Soutter 237 Mr Gary Doyle 238 Name withheld 239 Mr Christopher Hallett 240 Mr Paul Adlard 241 The Salvation Army, Australia Southern Territory 241A Supplementary submission 242 Mrs Juliana Michaelides 243 Liberty Victoria, Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc 244 Anglican Diocese of Melbourne 245 Mr Dean Miller 246 Mr John McBride 247 Ms Toni Courtney 248 Ms Helen Dawson 249 For The Innocents 249A Supplementary submission 250 Confidential 251 Mr Michael Day 252 Save the Children Australia 253 Care Leavers of Australia Network (CLAN) 254 Mr Arthur O’Bryan 255 National Children’s and Youth Law Centre (NCYLC) 256 Confidential
649 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 257 Mr Rob Mitchell MP, Federal Member for McEwen 258 Victorian Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church 259 Mrs Rochelle Hicks 260 Confidential 261 Confidential 262 Berry Street 263 Mrs Carol Crowe 264 Mr & Mrs Claire & Anthony Stevens 265 Confidential 266 Confidential 267 Ms Mary Rutledge 268 Name withheld 268A Confidential 268B Name withheld 269 Mr Gregory Dinneen 270 Salt Shakers Inc 271 Confidential 272 Confidential 273 Mr Aldo Bayona 274 Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) 274A Supplementary submission 275 Mr Mark Beaumont 276 Rationalist Society of Australia 277 Confidential 278 Mr George Gorman 279 Bravehearts Inc 280 Mr Peter Blenkiron 281 Confidential 282 Confidential 283 Confidential 284 Mrs Gwenda Collier 285 Professor Michael Parer 286 Mr Robert Mackay 287 Mr Sean Holohan 288 Ms Josephine Mertens 289 Mr Mike Scull 290 Name withheld
650 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 291 Mr Chris Pianto 292 Mr Will Hersbach 293 Mr Tony Hersbach 293A Supplementary submission 294 Confidential 295 Name withheld 296 Ms Noreen Wood 297 Name withheld 298 Name withheld 299 Name withheld 300 Name withheld 301A Name withheld supplementary submission 302 Name withheld 303 Confidential 304 Confidential 305 Name withheld 306 Ms Heather Bell 307 Name withheld 308 Ms Angela Read 308A Supplementary submission 309 Name withheld 310 Ms Carmel Moloney 311 Dr Heather O’Connor, OAM 312 Ms Margot Serch 313 Ms Maree Phelan 314 Ms Lyn Snibson 315 Ms Claire Linane 316 Mr John Frederiksen 317 Ballarat & District Group 318 Confidential 319 Ms Pam Krstic, Ms Angela Read & Mr Ian Lawther 320 Mr Paul Tobias 321 Mrs Margaret Burke 322 Confidential 323 Confidential 324 Ms Sandra Higgs 325 Father Kevin Dillon
651 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 326 Name withheld 327 Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare Inc 328 Ms Joan Wright 329 Confidential 330 Confidential 331 Confidential 332 Ms Margaret Newman 333 Western Region Centre Against Sexual Assault Inc (West CASA) 334 Ms Nicky Davis 335 Mrs Jessie Turner-Booth 336 Mr Michael Keegan 337 Mr Alan Walker 338 Mr Bernd Bartl 338A Supplementary submission 339 Confidential 340 Name withheld 341 Confidential 342 Confidential 343 Confidential 344 Confidential 345 Ms Teresa Clapperton 346 Confidential 347 Mrs Carolyn Castell 348 Confidential 349 Mr Michael Cox 350 In Good Faith and Associates & The Melbourne Victims Collective 351 Confidential 352 Mr Peter Komiazyk 353A Name withheld supplementary submission 354 Ms Maureen O’Brien 355 Mr Neil Graham 356 Withdrawn 357 Name withheld 358 Confidential 359 Confidential 360 J Young 361 Mr Dale Edwards
652 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 362 Executive Council of Australian Jewry 363 Name withheld 364 Confidential 365 Ms Heather Lyon 366 Ms Debi Crocker 367 Ms Christine Osborne 368 Connecting Home 369 Mr James Fitzpatrick 370 Name withheld 371 Name withheld 372 Ms Leonie Sheedy on behalf of Mr Anthony Sheedy 373 Uncle Jack Charles 374 Uncle Howard Edwards 375 Confidential 376 Confidential 377 Mr John Groves 378 Mr Leslie Burr 379 Mr Ray Prosser 380 Confidential 381 Withdrawn 382 Confidential 382A Ms Pam Krstic 383 Mr David Horin 384 Mr Gordon Hill 385 Mr Wayne Davis 386 Confidential 387 Yeshivah Centre 388 Child Wise 389 vicsport 390 Womens’ Domestic Violence Crisis Service (WDVCS) 391 Ms Chris Wilding 392 Mr Paul Brockhoff 393 Mr Paul Krause 394 Mr Terry Grey 395 Mr Brian Uttinger 396 Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia (Jehovah’s Witnesses) 397 Name withheld
653 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Submission No. Name of submitter 398 Islamic Council of Victoria 399 Independent Schools Victoria 400 Mr Benedict Monagle 401 Mr Raymond Monagle 402 Mr Raymond & Mrs Bridget Monagle 403 Confidential 404 Catholic Church Insurance Professor Caroline Taylor, AM, Head, Social Justice Research Centre, School of 405 Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University 406 Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) 407 Confidential 408 Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney 409 Confidential 410 Name withheld 411 Mr David Carr 412 Mr John Hunter 413 Confidential 414 Mr Philip Williams 415 Ms Cathryn Boyle 416 Name withheld 417 Confidential 418 Confidential 419 Mr Terry Kelly 420 Confidential 421 Mr Mark Prouse 422 Confidential 423 Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission 424 Ms Vivien Resofsky 425 Confidential 426 Name withheld 427 Mr James Shanahan 428 Confidential 429 Confidential 430 Confidential 431 Confidential 432 Mr Lincoln McMahon 433 Confidential
654 Appendices and Bibliography
Submission No. Name of submitter 434 Mrs Janette Norris 435 Name withheld 436 Name withheld 437 Name withheld 438 Confidential 439 Ms Emma Biggar 440 Ms Phylis Read & Ms Rosemary Baker 441 Mr Oliver Clark 442 Confidential 443 Ms Jayne Calvert 444 Mr Paul Murnane 445 Mr Hank Lunenburg 446 Confidential 447 Confidential 448 Name withheld 449 Ms Jennifer Herrick 450 Confidential
655 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 13—Name withheld submissions requested by the Committee
451 Name withheld 469 Name withheld 452 Name withheld 470 Name withheld 453 Name withheld 471 Name withheld 454 Name withheld 472 Name withheld 455 Name withheld 473 Name withheld 456 Name withheld 474 Name withheld 457 Name withheld 475 Name withheld 458 Name withheld 476 Name withheld 459 Name withheld 477 Name withheld 460 Name withheld 478 Name withheld 461 Name withheld 479 Name withheld 462 Name withheld 480 Name withheld 463 Name withheld 481 Name withheld 464 Name withheld 482 Name withheld 465 Name withheld 483 Name withheld 466 Name withheld 484 Name withheld 467 Name withheld 485 Name withheld 468 Name withheld 486 Name withheld
656 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 14—Public hearings
The Committee held the following Public Hearings around the State:
Date Venue 19 October 2012 Melbourne 22 October 2012 Melbourne 9 November 2012 Melbourne 12 November 2012 Melbourne 23 November 2012 Melbourne 26 November 2012 Melbourne 7 December 2012 Ballarat 10 December 2012 Melbourne 17 December 2012 Melbourne 23 January 2013 Melbourne 4 February 2013 Melbourne 15 February 2013 Geelong 18 February 2013 Melbourne 28 February 2013 Ballarat 1 March 2013 Melbourne 4 March 2013 Melbourne 14 March 2013 Bendigo 15 March 2013 Melbourne 18 March 2013 Melbourne 25 March 2013 Melbourne 26 March 2013 Melbourne 4 April 2013 Melbourne 5 April 2013 Melbourne 11 April 2013 Melbourne 12 April 2013 Melbourne 15 April 2013 Melbourne 22 April 2013 Melbourne 29 April 2013 Melbourne 30 April 2013 Melbourne 3 May 2013 Melbourne 20 May 2013 Melbourne 27 May 2013 Melbourne 3 June 2013 Melbourne
657 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
19 October 2012, Melbourne
Department of Justice Dr Claire Noone Acting Secretary Ms Marisa De Cicco Executive Director, Strategic Policy and Legislation Acting Director, Community Operations and Victims Support Ms Fiona Chamberlain Agency
Victoria Police Mr Graham Ashton Deputy Commissioner Mr Findlay McRae Director, Legal Services Detective Superintendent Rod Sexual and Family Violence Directorate Jouning
Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia, Monash University Professor Chris Goddard Director
University of Sydney Professor Patrick Parkinson Faculty of Law
Australian Institute of Family Studies Dr Daryl Higgins Deputy Director, Research
22 October 2012, Melbourne
RMIT University Professor Des Cahill Professor of Intercultural Studies
Department of Human Services Ms Gill Callister Secretary Executive Director, Service Delivery and Performance Mr Alan Hall Division Mr Argiri Alisandratos Assistant Director, Placement and Support
9 November 2012, Melbourne
Victoria Police Forensic Interview Adviser, Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Mr Patrick Tidmarsh Investigation Team (SOCIT) Detective Superintendent Rod Sexual and Family Violence Directorate Jouning
Centres Against Sexual Assault Ms Karen Hogan Manager, Gatehouse Centre, Royal Children’s Hospital Ms Carolyn Worth Manager, South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault Executive Officer, Western Regional Centre Against Sexual Ms Jane Vanderstoel Assault
658 Appendices and Bibliography
Griffith University Professor Stephen School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Smallbone
Broken Rites Ms Chris MacIsaac President Dr Wayne Chamley Honorary Researcher Dr Bernard Barrett Honorary Researcher
Australian Childhood Foundation Dr Joe Tucci Chief Executive Officer
12 November 2012, Melbourne
University of Technology, Sydney Dr Jane Wangmann Lecturer, Faculty of Law
In Good Faith and Associates Ms Helen Last Director Ms Pam Krstic Educational and Child Protection Advisor Ms Clare Leaney Research Assistant
23 November 2012, Melbourne
Mr Anthony Foster Mrs Chrissie Foster Ms Katie Foster Ms Aimee Foster Mr Jim Commadeur Ms Mairead Ashcroft Mr Ian Lawther
26 November 2013, Melbourne
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) Ms Barbara Blaine Founder and President Ms Nicky Davis Sydney Area Chapter Mr Mark Fabbro Sydney and Melbourne Area Chapters
7 December 2012, Ballarat
Mr Philip Nagle Ms Carmel Moloney Mrs Helen Watson Mr Tim Watson
659 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
10 December 2012, Melbourne
Mr Manny Waks Mr Zephaniah Waks Dr Tom Keating
17 December 2012, Melbourne
Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN) Ms Leonie Sheedy Executive Officer Ms Phyllis Cremona Mr Frank Golding
Law Institute of Victoria Mr Michael Holcroft President Ms Alice Palmer Lawyer, Administrative Law and Human Rights Section
Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers Ms Anglea Sidrinis Partner
23 January 2013, Melbourne
Catholics for Renewal Mr Peter Johnstone OAM President Mr Frank Burke Secretary Ms Maria McGarvie Member Mr Phil O’Donnell Mr Graeme Sleeman Ms Carmel Rafferty
4 February 2013, Melbourne
Mr Brian Cherrie Mr Hugh McGowan
15 February 2013, Geelong
Father Kevin Dillon Parish Priest, St Mary of the Angels Parish, Geelong Mr Chris Pianto Ms Sandra Higgs Mr Max Johnson Mr Joseph Saric
660 Appendices and Bibliography
18 February 2013, Melbourne
Mr Alan Charlie Walker
28 February 2013, Ballarat
Ms Judy Courtin Mr Peter Blenkiron Mr Keith Whelan Mr Stephen Woods Mrs Anne Murray Mr Andrew Collins Mr Tim Lane Mr Robert Walsh Mr Paul Tatchell Mr Michael Crowe Mrs Carol Crowe Ms Dianne Hadden Ms Ann Ryan
1 March 2013, Melbourne
Dr Barry Coldrey Mr Peter Komiazyk Dr Joseph Poznanski Mr Robert Mackay Ms Valda Lang Ms Mary Rutledge
4 March 2013, Melbourne
Mr Raymond D’Brass Mr John Frederiksen Mr Tony Paul
14 March 2013, Bendigo
Father Paul Walliker Mr Dean Miller
661 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
15 March 2013, Melbourne
Ms Margaret Newman Mr Gary Doyle Mrs Mary Doyle Professor Paul Mullen Mr James Boyle Ms Jill Mather Mr Kevin Houlihan Ms Brenda Coughlan
18 March 2013, Melbourne
Connecting Home Mr Alister McKeich Senior Education and Research Fellow Uncle Jack Charles Uncle Howard Edwards Uncle Murray Harrison
25 March 2013, Melbourne
Professor Michael Parer Ms Marlene Parer Ms Carol Barraclough Therapist, Windermere Child and Family Services Mrs Noreen Wood Mr Wayne Davis Mr Chris Whelan Ms Sandra Clark Dr Peter Lazzari
26 March 2013, Melbourne
Ms Chris Wilding Ms Gabrielle Short Mr Gordon Hill Mr Bernd Bartl Mr David Horin
662 Appendices and Bibliography
4 April 2013, Melbourne
Edith Cowan University Professor Caroline Taylor AM Chair of Social Justice
NSW Ombudsman Deputy Ombudsman, and Community and Disability Mr Steve Kinmond Services Commissioner
University of South Australia Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs AO
Ansvar Insurance Ltd Mr Andrew Moon Chief Executive Officer Ms Lesley-Ann Butler National Liability Claims Manager
5 April 2013, Melbourne
Child Wise Mr Scott Jacobs Child Protection Policy and Certification Mr Adrian Campion Trainer and Counsellor
Commission for Children and Young People Mr Bernie Geary Principal Commissioner Ms Christine Withers Manager, Promotion and Policy Ms Megan Scannell Senior Project Manager Ms Virginia Dods Policy Adviser
Sculpture Union Victoria Mr David Tolputt Director, and Board member ChildSafe Ltd Ms Emma Payne Administrations Coordinator
Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia Ms Debbie Prout Company Director Ms Ruth Edge Victorian Branch Councillor
11 April 2013, Melbourne
Salvation Army Captain Malcolm Roberts Territorial Legal Secretary
Australian Camps Association Mr David Petherick Chief Executive Officer
663 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Scouts Victoria Mr Bob Taylor Chief Commissioner Mr John de Wijn Branch Executive Committee Mr Martin Thomas Executive Manager and General Secretary
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia (Jehovah’s Witnesses) Mr Terrence O’Brien Director of Society and Acting Branch Coordinator Ms Rachel van Witsen Legal Counsel
12 April 2013, Melbourne
Federation of Indian Associations of Victoria Mr Vasan Srinivasan President
vicsport Mr Mark McAllion Chief Executive Officer
Child Care Victoria Mr Frank Cusamono Chief Executive Officer Mr Paul Mondo President
Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan District of Victoria Bishop Iakovos of Miletoupolis
University of Sydney Associate Professor Judith Sydney Law School Cashmore AO
15 April 2013, Melbourne
Community Child Care Association Ms Leanne Giardina Chief Executive Officer Ms Catherine Kimber Professional Support Consultant
Islamic Council of Victoria Mr Nail Aykan General Manager Ms Monique Toohey Executive Member Mr Ghaith Krayem Secretary
Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) Ms Melanie Saba Chief Executive Officer Ms Barbara Carter Group Manager, Registration and Accreditation Mr Chris Enright Group Manager, Inquiries and Litigation
664 Appendices and Bibliography
22 April 2013, Melbourne
Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Most Reverend Dr Philip Freier Archbishop Mr Ken Spackman Registrar and General Manager, Business Services Ms Claire Sargent Independent Director of Professional Standards
Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights Ms Tasneem Chopra Chairperson Ms Joumanah El Matrah Director
Uniting Church in Australia (Synod of Victoria and Tasmania) Reverend Dr Mark Lawrence General Secretary, UnitingCare, Victoria and Tasmania Associate General Secretary, UnitingCare, Victoria and Reverend Dr Peter Blackwood Tasmania Mr Phil Conrick Acting Director, UnitingCare, Victoria and Tasmania Mr Philip Battye Legal Advisor, Uniting Church
Jewish Community Council of Victoria Ms Nina Bassat President Mr David Marlow Executive Director
29 April 2013, Melbourne
Hospitaller Order of St John of God Oceania Province Brother Timothy Graham Provincial Ms Rosanna Harris Chair, Professional Standards Committee
Salesians of Don Bosco Father John Papworth Provincial Father Greg Chambers Former Vice-Provincial
Catholic Diocese of Ballarat Bishop Paul Bird Bishop Peter Connors
30 April 2013, Melbourne
Melbourne Response Mr Peter O’Callaghan QC Independent Commissioner Mr Jeff Gleeson SC Independent Commissioner
Catholic Church Insurance Mr Peter Rush Chief Executive Officer Ms Marita Wright National Claims Manager
665 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
3 May 2013, Melbourne
Christian Brothers Brother Julian McDonald Deputy Province Leader Brother Brian Brandon Executive Officer, Professional Standards Mr Shane Wall Co-Executive Officer, Professional Standards Office
Towards Healing Sister Angela Ryan Former Executive Officer Ms Narelle McMahon National Protection and Prevention Officer Mr Paul Murnane, APM Assessor
Catholic Education Office Melbourne Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, Ltd Executive Director, Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, Ltd Mr Stephen Elder Executive Director, Catholic Education in the Archdiocese of Melbourne Manager, Wellbeing and Community Partnerships, Catholic Mr Dennis Torpy Education Office Melbourne
Compensation Panel, Melbourne Response Mr David Curtain QC Chairman
20 May 2013, Melbourne
Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart Mr Francis Moore Executive Director, Administration
27 May 2013, Melbourne
Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Cardinal George Pell Archbishop of Sydney
3 June 2013, Melbourne
Department of Human Services Ms Robyn Miller Acting Director, Office of Professional Practice Deputy Secretary, Service Design and Implementation Mr Arthur Rogers Group
666 Appendices and Bibliography
Appendix 15—Right of reply submissions
Role or individual Organisation Number of submissions Paul Bird, Bishop of Ballarat Ballarat Diocese, Catholic Church 1 Ms Susan Sharkey, Coordinator Carelink Counselling Services 3 Denis Hart, Archbishop of Melbourne Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne 3 Mr Franics Moore, Executive Director Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne 1 Administration Cardinal George Pell Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney 1 Ms Audrey Brown, Director of Catholic Catholic Diocese of Ballarat Education 1 Education Dr Danny Lamm, President and Mr Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc. 1 Peter Wertheim AM, Executive Director Mr Peter O’Callaghan QC, Independent Melbourne Response, Catholic Church in 15 Commissioner Victoria Ms Carolyn Worth CEASE 1 Professor Patrick Parkinson AM Faculty of Law, University of Sydney 1 Mr Philip Brewin Nevett ford on behalf of the Salvation 1 Army (Southern Territory) Mr Tony Hersbach 1 Mr John Ellis 1
667 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Appendix 16—Secretariat of the Family and Community Development Committee
Dr Janine Bush Executive Officer Ms Vicky Finn Research Officer Ms Natalie Tyler Administrative Officer
Additional resources: The Committee was provided with following additional resources for the duration of the Inquiry:
The Hon. Frank Vincent AO QC Senior Advisor, Legal Mr Mal Hyde AO APM Senior Advisor, Police Mrs Claire Quin Senior Counsel Mr Ian Dosser Investigator—police issues Ms Caroline Williams Senior Research Officer Mr Conor Flanagan Research Officer Ms Amanda Kennedy Media and Communications Ms Ingrid Johnson Community Engagement Officer Ms Florence Kaur Community Engagement Officer Ms Sally Graham Senior Solicitor Mr Jon Bayley Senior Solicitor
Legal team Ms Natasha Bairstow Mr Francis Hicks Ms Kate Gray Ms Allana Binnie Ms Gemma Kelly Ms Niamh O’Riordan Mr Aylmer Low
Professional counselling and de-briefing support during Inquiry: The Secretariat, Committee and Parliament of Victoria staff had access to professional counselling and de-briefing support from Carfi for the duration of the Inquiry.
668 Appendices and Bibliography
Bibliography
ABC National Radio, Doubts over sincerity of Catholic Church reform, 3 October 2013. AD 2000—A journal of religious opinion (2011) Cardinal Pell: The responsibilities of Church leadership, Accessed on 1 May 2013 from http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2011/oct2011p3_3622.html. Altobelli, T. (2003) ‘Institutional processes for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse ’. Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Responses or Alternative Resolution Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1–2 May 2003. Anglican Diocese of Melbourne (2010) Power and trust in the church. A protocol under the Professional Standards Act 2009 for responding to abuse harassment and other misconduct within the Church. Canterbury, Anglican Diocese of Melbourne. Ansvar Insurance Limited (2009) Risk management guide: Preventing abuse. AusAID (Undated) AusAID management response: Independent child protection policy review 2011, Australian Government. AusAID (2013) Child protection policy Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010) 4102.0—Child care, Australian social trends June 2010. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) 4221.0—Schools, Australia, 2012 Accessed on 12 August 2012 from http://www.abs.gov. au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4221.0Main+Features202012?OpenDocument. Australian Bureau of Statistics (April 2012) 4901.0—Cultural activities, children’s participation in cultural and leisure activities Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Camps Association About us, Accessed on 21 February 2013 from http://www.auscamps.asn.au/about. Australian Catholic Bishop Conference and Catholic Religious Australia (January 2010) Towards Healing. Principles and procedures in responding to complaints of abuse against personnel of the Catholic Church in Australia. Alexandria NSW, National Committee of Professional Standards. Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Factsheet: Regulation of charities in Victoria (Vic), Accessed on 1 June 2013 from http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/FTS/FS_VIC_Reg.aspx. Australian Childhood Foundation Safeguarding Children. Which organisations are already Safeguarding Children accredited? , Accessed on 9 September 2013 from http://www.safeguardingchildren.com.au/the-program/accredited- organisations.aspx. Australian Childhood Foundation Safeguarding Children: A program resourcing organisations to protect children and young people, Information booklet. Ringwood, ACF. Australian Childhood Foundation The seven key strategies, Accessed on 30 January 2013 from http://www.safeguardingchildren. com.au/the-program/the-seven-key-strategies.aspx. Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (2013) Guide to the National Quality Standard. Sydney, ACECQA. Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority Introducing the National Quality Framework, Accessed on 18 September 2013 from http://acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-framework/introducing-the-national-quality-framework. Australian Government, Department of Health, People who are care leavers, Accessed on 30 October 2013 from http:// www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/ageing-roaca-12-toc~ageing-roaca-12-07- support~support-7-7. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Child Family Community Australia (2013) The economic costs of child abuse and neglect, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a142118/index.html. Australian Institute of Family Studies Pre-employment screening: Working with Children Checks and police checks, Accessed on 8 October 2013 from http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a141887/. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2013) Child protection Australia: 2011–12 Child Welfare series no. 55, Cat. no. CWS43. Canberra, AIHW. Australian Law Reform Commission (1987) Evidence (ALRC Report 38), ALRC. Australian Law Reform Commission & NSW Law Reform Commission (2010) Family violence: A national legal response. Final report (ALRC 114), Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Sports Commission (2013, version 7) Member protection policy template for national sporting organisations. Bruce ACT, Australian Sports Commission.
669 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Baptist Union of Victoria (Revised 2011) Complaint procedure for allegations of misconduct by pastoral leaders. Camberwell, BUV. Barker, R. & McKenzie, N. ‘An unbearable secret’, The Age, 6 June 2012. Berry Street (2009) Child safety and wellbeing policy. Richmond, Berry Street. Berry Street (2012) Complaints—adult care leavers policy. Richmond, Berry Street. Berry Street (2010) Policy on handling misconduct allegations. Richmond, Berry Street. Beyer, L.R., Higgins, D.J., & Bromfield, L.M. (2005) Understanding organisational risk factors for child maltreatment: A review of literature. A report to the Community Services Ministers’ Advisory Council (CSMAC) Child Safe Organisations Working Group. Australian Institute of Family Studies. BishopAccountability.org Documenting the abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church, Accessed on 29 May 2013 from http:// www.bishopaccountability.org/. Braithwaite, J. (2002) Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, Oxford University Press. Briere, J. & Elliott, D.M. (1994) ‘Immediate and long-term impacts of child sexual abuse ’. The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 54–69. British and Irish Legal Information Institute (Bailii) (2010) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions, Accessed on 7 August 2013 from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/256.html. British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General Justice Services Branch Civil Policy and Legislation Office (2010) White Paper on Limitation Act reform: Finding the balance. British Columbia Ministry of Justice (2013) New Limitation Act: Questions and answers, Accessed on 26 June 2013 from http:// www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/limitation-act/pdf/LA_QAs.pdf. Broadley, K., Goddard, C., & Tucci, J. (unpublished) Surveillance: Towards a child-centred national framework for protecting children, Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia, Monash Injury Research Institute, Monash University, and Australian Childhood Foundation. Brodsky, B.S. & Stanley, B. (2008) ‘Adverse childhood experiences and suicidal behavior ’. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 223–35. Brown, A.J. & Donkin, M. (2008) ‘Introduction’. In Brown, A. (Ed.), Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector: Enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organisations. Canberra, ANU E Press. Buckingham, J. (2010) The rise of religious schools, The Centre for Independent Studies (Australia). Carcach, C. (1997) ‘Reporting crime to the police ’. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Vol. 68. Cashmore, J. & Shackel, R. (2013) The long-term effects of child sexual abuse Child Family Community Australia, Paper No. 11. Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne (2011) May our children flourish: Code of conduct for caring for children. East Melbourne, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney (2012) Sexual abuse: The response of the Archdiocese of Sydney. Sydney, Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney. Catholic Communications, Archdiocese of Melbourne, ‘A pastoral response to professional misconduct/clergy sexual abuse’ (Media release, 16 February 1996). Catholic Education Melbourne (Revised 2013) Policy 2.20. Allegations of misconduct against lay employees in Catholic schools and Catholic education offices, Accessed on 10 October 2013 from http://www.ceomelb.catholic.edu.au/publications- policies/policy/policy-2.20-allegations-of-misconduct-against-lay-employees/. Catholic Education Office Melbourne (2007) Policy 2.20. Allegations of misconduct against lay employees in Catholic schools. East Melbourne, CEOM. Catholic Education Office Melbourne (2007) Procedures for allegations of misconduct. East Melbourne, CEOM. Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (2011) Their voice: Involving children and young people in decisions, services and systems, Monograph, Accessed on 12 July 2013 from http://www.cfecfw.asn.au/sites/www.cfecfw.asn.au/files/ Their_Voice_Monograph_Web.pdf. Child Family Community Australia (2013) The prevalence of child abuse and neglet, Accessed on 28 July 2013 from http://www. aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a144254/index.html. Child Safety Commissioner (2006) A guide for creating a child-safe organisation. Melbourne, Child Safety Commissioner.
670 Appendices and Bibliography
Childsafe Childsafe—About us, Accessed on 25 March 2013 from http://www.childsafe.org.au/about-us/. Childwise (Undated) Choose with care: 12 steps to child safe organisation. South Melbourne, Childwise. Childwise (2004) Choose with care: A handbook to build safer organisations for children. South Melbourne, Childwise. Childwise (2008) Keeping your children safe: Choosing safe organisations and activities for your children. Melbourne, Childwise. Commission of Investigation (2005) Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Cloyne Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality. Commission of Investigation (2009) Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality. Commission of Investigation (2011) Report into the Catholic Archdiocese of Ferns Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality. Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Explanatory Memorandum Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010. Commonwealth Ombudsman (2009) Better practice guide to complaint handling. Canberra, Commonwealth Ombudsman. Consumer Affairs Victoria Should your club incorporate? , Accessed on 1 June 2013 from http://www.consumer.vic.gov. au/clubs-and-not-for-profits/incorporated-associations/become-an-incorporated-association/should-your-club- incorporate. County Court of Victoria Mediation, Accessed on 27 July 2013 from http://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/mediation. County Court of Victoria Mediation | County Court, Accessed on 27 July 2013 from http://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/ mediation. Crime Prevention Committee (1995) Combating child sexual assault, An integrated model Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria. Cummins, P., Scott, D., OAM, & Scales, B., AO (2012) Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry Melbourne, Department of Premier and Cabinet. Cutajar, M., Mullen, P., Ogloff, J., Thomas, S., Wells, D., & Spataro, J. (2010) ‘Suicide and fatal drug overdose in child sexual abuse victims: A history cohort study ’. The Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 192, No. 4, pp. 184–87. Daane, D.M. (2005) ‘The ripple effects: Secondary sexual assault survivors’. In Reddington, F.P. and Kreisel, B.W. (Eds.), Sexual assault: The victims, the perpetrators and the criminal justice system. Durham, North Carolina, Carolina Academic Press. Deloitte Access Economics (2011) The economic and social cost of child abuse in Victoria, 2009–10. Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry. Deloitte Access Economics Pty Ltd. Department for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2013) Find and Connect Australia, Accessed on 14 August 2013 from http://www.findandconnect.gov.au/. Department for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Find and Connect: Redress WA (2008–2011), Accessed on 2 May 2013 from http://www.findandconnect.gov.au/wa/biogs/WE00505b.htm. Department for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2011) Position paper: Toward a nationally consistent approach to Working with Children Checks, FaHCSIA. Department of Education (2007) Responding to allegations of student sexual assault. Procedures for Victorian Government schools. Melbourne, Student Wellbeing and Support Division, Office of Government School Education. Department of Human Services (2011) Critical client incident management instruction. Melbourne, Victorian Government. Department of Human Services (2011) Department of Human Services standards evidence guide. Melbourne, DHS. Department of Human Services ‘Goals and principles for placement’ Protecting Victoria’s children—Child protection practice manual, Accessed on 22 August 2013 from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/cpmanual/about-the-manual. Department of Human Services (2009) Guidelines for responding to quality of care concerns in out-of-home care. Melbourne, Children Youth & Families Division, DHS. Department of Human Services (2013) Policy and funding plan 2012–2015 Melbourne. Department of Human Services (2005) Responding to allegations of physical or sexual assault. Departmental instruction. Melbourne, DHS. Department of Human Services (2008) Responding to physical and sexual assault. Melbourne, DHS. Department of Human Services Child Protection & Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Licensed Children’s Services and Victorian Schools (2010) Protecting the safety and wellbeing of children and young people: A joint protocol. Melbourne, DHS and DEECD. Department of Justice (2010) 2010 Victims of Crime Compensation Review: Framework Report, DOJ.
671 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Department of Justice (2009) Review of victims of crime compensation: Sentencing orders and state-funded awards: Discussion paper, DOJ. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans’ Health Cards, Accessed on 30 July 2013 from http://www.dva.gov.au/ benefitsAndServices/health_cards/Pages/index.aspx. Department of Veterans Affairs Welcome to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Accessed on 30 July 2013 from http://www. dva.gov.au/. Eastwood, C. (2003) ‘The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system ’. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Vol. 250. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995) ‘Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us ’. Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 579-94. Erooga, M. (2009) Towards safer organisations: Adults who pose a risk to children in the workplace and implications for recruitment and selection London, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Erooga, M., Allnock, D., & Telford, P. (2012) Towards safer organisations II: Using the perspectives of convicted sex offenders to inform organisational safeguarding of children London, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Family and Community Development Committee (2009) Inquiry into supported accommodation for Victorians with a disability and/or mental illness. Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria. Family and Community Development Committee (2012) Submission guide, Inquiry into handling of child abuse in religious and non-government organisations. Farrell, D.P. & Taylor, M. (2000) ‘Silenced by God—An examination of unique characteristics within sexual abuse by clergy ’. Counselling Psychology Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 22–31. Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M., Edwards, V., Koss, M.P., & Marks, J.S. (2001) ‘Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults’. In Franey, K., Geffner, R. and Falconer, R. (Eds.), The cost of child maltreatment: Who pays? We all do. San Diego, CA, Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute. Fergusson, D., Boden, J., & Horwood, J. (2008) ‘Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood ’. Child abuse and neglet, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 607-19. Finkelhor, D. (1984) Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York, Free Press. Fitzroy Legal Service The Law Handbook Online, Accessed on 29 May 2013 from http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/. Flanagan, K. (2004) Choose with care: Building child safe organisations. South Melbourne, Child Wise. Foster, C. & Kennedy, P. (2011) Hell on the way to heaven. North Sydney, Random House Australia. Frederico, M., Jackson, A., & Black, C.M. (2008) ‘Understanding the impact of abuse and neglect on children and young people referred to a therapeutic program ’. Journal of Family Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2‑3, pp. 342–61. GCPS Consulting Group (2012) Independent child protection policy review 2011, AusAID. Georgetown University Centre for Applied Research in the Apostolate The Sacrament of Reconciliation, Accessed on 22 April 2013 from http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/reconciliation.pdf. Gilbert, R.G., Spatz Widom, C., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009) ‘Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries ’. The Lancet, Vol. 373, No. 9657, pp. 68‑81. Girl Guides Australia (Victoria) (2013) Grivance procedure GP43. South Melbourne, Girl Guides Australia (Victoria). Government of New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People (2012) 2011–2012 Annual Report New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People. Government of South Australia Department of Families and Communities (2007) Child safe environments: Principles of good practice Adelaide, DFC. Graycar, R. & Wangmann, J. (2007) ‘Redress packages for institutional child abuse: Exploring the Grandview Agreement as a case study in ‘alternative’ dispute resolution ’. University of Sydney, Legal Studies Research Paper 07/50. Hardaker, D. (2003) Mark Raper breaks his silence, Accessed on 8 August 2013 from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/ s892572.htm. Harkness, K.L. & Lumley, M.N. (2008) ‘Child abuse and neglect and the development of depression in children and adolescents’. In Abela, J.R.Z. and Hankin, B.L. (Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents. New York, The Guildford Press.
672 Appendices and Bibliography
Higgins, D. (2004) ‘Differentiating between child maltreatment experiences ’. Family Matters, Vol. 69, pp. 50–55. Hoiles, L., Prilleltensky, I., & Sharples, J. (2003) Evaluation of the Australian Council for Children and Youth Organisations (ACCYO) pilot accreditation project. St Albans, Wellness Promotion Unit, Victoria University. Hurdle, J. & Eckholm, E. (June 22, 2012) Cardinal’s aide is found guilty in abuse case, Accessed on 28 May 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/philadelphias-msgr-william-j-lynn-is-convicted-of-allowing-abuse. html?pagewanted=all. Independent Schools Council of Australia About independent schools, Accessed on 21 October 2013 from http://isca.edu.au/ about-independent-schools/. Independent Schools Victoria Incident Investigations, Accessed on 5 September 2013 from http://www.is.vic.edu.au/ compliance/school_ops/incident_investigations.htm. Irenyi, M., Bromfield, L., Beyer, L., & Higgins, D. (2006) Child maltreatment in organisations: Risk factors and strategies for prevention Child Abuse Prevention Issues series. vol. 25, Spring 2006, Melbourne, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Isely, P.J., Isely, P., Freiburger, J., & McMackin, R. (2008) ‘In their own voices: A qualitative study of men abused as children by Catholic clergy ’. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 17, No. 3–4, pp. 201–15. Jesuit Social Services (2012) Policy and procedure. Participants feedback and complaints Jesuit Social Services. John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2004) The nature and scope of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons in the United States 1950–2002 Washington DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Kaufman, F. (2002) Searching for justice: An independent review of Nova Scotia’s response to reports of institutional abuse Province of Nova Scotia. Keenan, M. (2012) Child sexual abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, power and organizational culture. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Keenan, M. (2011) Child sexual abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, power and organizational culture. USA, Oxford University Press. Kendall-Tackett, K. (2002) ‘The health effects of childhood abuse: Four pathways by which abuse can influence health ’. Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 26, No. 6–7, pp. 715–30. Kendall-Tackett, K., Williams, L.M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993) ‘Impacts of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies ’. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 164–80. Kline, P.M., McMackin, R., & Lezotte, E. (2008) ‘The impact of the clergy abuse scandal on parish communities ’. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 17, No. 3–4, pp. 290–300. Lamont, A. (2010) Effects of child abuse and neglect for adult survivors. NCPC Resource Sheet Melbourne, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Lamont, A. & Bromfield, L. (2010) History of child protection services NCPC Resource Sheet. Melbourne, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Latimer, P. & Brown, A.J. (2008) ‘Whistleblower laws: International best practice ’. University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3. Law Commission of Canada (2000) Restoring dignity: Responding to child abuse in Canadian institutions. Ottawa, Law Commission of Canada. Law Council of Australia (2011) A model limitation period for personal injury actions in Australia: Position paper Canberra. Lovallo, W.R. (1997) Stress and health: Biological and psychological interactions. Newbury Park, CA, Sage. Mathews, B. (2004) ‘Post-Ipp special limitation periods for cases of injury to a child by a parent or close associate: New jurisdictional gulfs ’. Torts Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 239–58. McAlinden, A.-M. (2013) ‘An inconvenient truth: Barriers to truth recovery in the aftermath of institutional child abuse in Ireland ’. Legal Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 189–214. McAlinden, A.-M. (2006) ‘“Setting ‘em up”: Personal, familial and institutional grooming in the sexual abuse of children ’. Social and Legal Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 339–62. Merrick, M.T., Litrownik, A.J., Everson, M.D., & Cox, C.E. (2008) ‘Beyond sexual abuse: The impact of other maltreatment experience on sexualized behaviours ’. Child Maltreatment, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 122–32. Mitchell, N (13 April, 2012) Neil Mitchell radio interview with Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton, Victoria Police, 3AW 693.
673 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Moran, P.B., Vuchinich, S., & Hall, N.K. (2004) ‘Associations between types of maltreatment and substance use during adolescence ’. Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 565–74. Morrison, Z., Quadara, A., & Boyd, C. (2007) ‘Ripple effects’ of sexual assault. Melbourne, Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault. Mullen, P.E., Martin, J.L., Anderson, J.C., Romans, S., & Herbison, G.P. (1995) ‘The long-term impact of the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children: A community study ’. Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–15. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council What is ADR? , Accessed on 30 July 2013 from http://www.nadrac. gov.au/what_is_adr/Pages/default.aspx. Noll, D.E. & Harvey, L. (2008) ‘Restorative mediation: The application of restorative justice practice and philosophy to clergy sexual abuse cases ’. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 17, No. 3–4, pp. 377–96. NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (September 2013) The new working with children check: Risk assessment. Fact sheet 8, Accessed on 16 October 2013 from http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/Working-with-children/New-Working-With-Children- Check/Publications-and-resources. NSW Ombudsman (2009) Annual Report 2008–2009. NSW Ombudsman Child protection, Accessed on 18 October 2013 from http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and- publications/publications/fact-sheets/child-protection. NSW Ombudsman (2013) Child protection practice update: Defining reportable conduct, Accessed on 9 September 2013 from http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/5620/PU_CP_02_11_Reportable_Conduct_v3.pdf. NSW Ombudsman (2012) Child protection: Responsibilities of heads of agencies. Fact sheet 5. Sydney, NSW Ombudsman. NSW Ombudsman (2010, 2nd Edition) Effective complaint handling guidelines. Sydney, NSW Ombudsman. NSW Ombudsman (2012) Planning and conduction an investigation. Fact sheet 4. Sydney, NSW Ombudsman. NSW Ombudsman (2012) Reviewing child protection policies—An agency self-assessment checklist. Sydney, NSW Ombudsman. O’Brien, C. ‘Cost of State redress for abused up to nearly €1.5bn’, The Irish Times, 4 May 2012. Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel Penalty and fee units, Accessed on 30 July 2013 from http://www.ocpc.vic.gov.au/ CA2572B3001B894B/pages/faqs-penalty-and-fee-units. Panel of Eminent Persons to Review the Law of Negligence (the ‘Ipp Committee’) (2002) Review of the law of negligence: Final report Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. Parkinson, P. (2003) Child sexual abuse and the churches. 2 edn., Sydney, Aquila Press. Parkinson, P., Oates, K., & Jayakody, A. (2009) Study of reported child sexual abuse in the Anglican Church. Parliament of New South Wales Parliament of New South Wales, Accessed on 1 June 2013 from http://www.parliament.nsw. gov.au/. Pilgrim, D. (2012) ‘Child abuse in Irish Catholic settings: A non-reductionist approach ’. Child Abuse Review, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 405–13. Premier of Victoria, ‘Coalition Government takes immediate action to protect Victoria’s vulnerable children’ (Media release, 28 February 2012). Price-Robertson, R. (2012) ‘Fathers with a history of child sexual abuse: New findings for policy and practice. Child family community paper No. 6 ’. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia (2013) Child protection policy, Accessed on 5 September 2013 from http:// www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/resources/systemmanagement/policies. Protective Behaviours WA Inc (2013) Teenagers guide to personal safety. East Perth, Department of Education WA. Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (2013) Child and youth risk management strategies, Accessed on 7 June 2013 from http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/bluecard/risk-management.html. Queensland Law Reform Commission (1995) Vicarious liability: Discussion paper WP 48. Roberts, P., Olsen, J., & Brown, A. (2009) Whistling while they work: Towards best practice whistleblowing programs in public sector organisations Second report of the Australian Research Council Linkage Project—Whistling while they work: Enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organisations. Griffith University. Rosetti, S.J. (1995) ‘The impact of child sexual abuse on attitudes towards God and the Catholic Church ’. Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1469–81.
674 Appendices and Bibliography
Safe Place Services (2008 & 2011) AUC and NZPUC creating a safe place policy—Version 2012.01. Seventh-day Adventist Church of the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference. Sarmas, L. (2012) ‘Mixed messages on sexual assault and the statute of limitations: Stingel v Clark, the IPP “reforms” and an argument for change’. Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 609. Save the Children Australia (2011) Child protection policy and code of conduct. East Melbourne, Save the Children Australia. Scouts Australia (2002) Protecting your children: A parent’s guide. Chatswood, National Executive Committee of the Scout Association of Australia. Scripture Union Australia Childsafe—Safety Management System, Accessed on 25 March 2013 from http://www. scriptureunion.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=58. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2010) Review of government compensation payments Canberra, Australian Government. Shea, G. (1999) Redress programs relating to institutional child abuse in Canada Ottawa, Law Commission of Canada. Silverman, D.C. (1978) ‘Sharing the crisis of rape: Counselling the mates and families of victims ’. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 166–73. Sirles, E.A., Smith, J.A., & Kausama, H. (1988) ‘Psychiatric status of intrafamilial child sexual abuse victims’. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 225–29. Smallbone, S., Marshall, W.L., & Wortley, R. (2008) Preventing child sexual abuse: Evidence, policy and practice. Devon, Willan Publishing. Smallbone, S. & Wortley, R. (2001) ‘Child sexual abuse: Offender characteristics and modus operandi ’. Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Vol. 193. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (2013) Report on government services 2013 Canberra, Productivity Commission. Suitability Panel Overview, Accessed on 18 October 2013 from http://www.suitabilitypanel.vic.gov.au/index.htm. Supreme Court of Victoria Mediation—Supreme Court of Victoria, Accessed on 27 July 2013 from http://www.supremecourt. vic.gov.au/home/support+services/mediation/. Sydney Archdiocese Vocations Vocation Centre: Frequently asked questions, Accessed on 10 August 2013 from http://www. vocationcentre.org.au/faqs/. Taylor, C., Muldoon, S., Norma, C., & Bradley, D. (2012) Policing just outcomes Improving the police response to adults reporting sexual assault. Social Justice Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. Taylor, P., Moore, P., Pezzullo, L., Tucci, J., Goddard, C., & De Bortoli, L. (2008) The cost of child abuse in Australia Melbourne, Australian Childhood Foundation and Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia. Terry, K.J. (2008) ‘Stained Glass: The nature and scope of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church ’. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 549–69. Terry, K.J., Leland Smith, M., Schuth, K., Kelly, J.R., Vollman, B., & Massey, C. (2011) The causes and context of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States, 1950–2010. Washington, DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Terry, K.J., Smith, M.L., Schuth, K., Kelly, J.R., Vollman, B., & Massey, C. (2011) ‘Sexual victimization of minors: Analyzing the onset, persistence, and desistance from abuse incidents by priests’. The causes and context of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States, 1950–2010. Washington, DC., United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Age, ‘Muslim child abuse program’, 22 April 2013. The Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (1999) Discussion paper: Towards understanding, A study of factors specific to the Catholic Church which might lead to sexual abuse by priests and religious. Unpublished. The Holy Office (1962) Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, addressed to all patriarchs, archbishops and other local ordinaries “Also of the Oriental Rite” on the manner of proceeding in causes of solicitation, Accessed on 20 August 2013 from http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html. The Original Catholic Encyclopedia Civil incorporation of Church property, Accessed on 10 August 2013 from http://oce. catholic.com/index.php?title=Civil_incorporation_of_Church_Property. The Salvation Army, ‘The Salvation Army appearance before the Victorian Parliamentary Committee’s Inquiry into institutional responses to child sexual abuse’ (Media release, 11 April 2013).
675 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
Transport Accident Commission Transport Accident Commission, Accessed on 17 September 2013 from http://www.tac.vic. gov.au. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006) General comment No. 8: The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment vol. CRC/C/GC/8, Geneva, United Nations. United National General Assembly (2006) Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. Resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 21 March 2006. Victim Support Service Incorporated Victims of crime compensation, Accessed on 29 July 2013 from http://archive.victimsa. org/files/brochures/www---victims-of-crime-compensation.pdf. Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (Victoria) Determining an application, Accessed on 27 July 2013 from http://www.vocat. vic.gov.au/determining-application. Victims of Crime: Department of Justice (Victoria) Compensation and expenses, Accessed on 10 May 2013 from http://www. victimsofcrime.vic.gov.au/home/going+to+court/compensation+and+expenses/. Victoria Police Community safety, Accessed on 4 October 2013 from http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ ID=36235. Victoria Police National Police Certificates issued by Victoria Police. 20 frequently asked questions, Accessed on 9 September 2013 from http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=274. Victorian Auditor-General’s Report (2012) Freedom of information Melbourne, VAGO. Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ADR—Compulsory conferences and mediations, Accessed on 1 August 2013 from http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/hearings/adr-compulsory-conferences-and-mediations. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (2011) Positive duty: Know your responsibilities, Accessed on 26 June 2013 from http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/index.php/our-resources-and-publications/know- your-responsibilities-brochures/item/133-positive-duty-know-your-responsibilities-aug-2011. Victorian Government (2012) Protecting children. Protocol between Department of Human Services Child Protection and Victoria Police. Melbourne, State of Victoria. Victorian Government (2013) Strategy 2013–2022 Victoria’s vulnerable children strategy: Our shared responsibility Melbourne. Victorian Government (2012) Victoria’s vulnerable children. Our shared responsibility Directions paper. Melbourne, Victorian Government. Victorian Institute of Teaching Professional standards, Accessed on 7 October 2013 from http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/ standardsandlearning/Pages/professional-standards.aspx. Victorian Ombudsman (2012) Investigation into the storage and management of ward records by the Department of Human Services, P.P. No. 109, March 2012. Victorian Law Reform Commission (2003) Sexual offences: Interim report Melbourne, VLRC. Victorian Law Reform Commission (2004) Sexual offences: Final report Melbourne, VLRC. Victorian Ombudsman (2009) Own motion investigation into the Department of Human Services child protection program Melbourne, VO. Victorian Sentencing Manual, Part E ‘Offences’ 31.3.2.2 Incest Accessed on 20 August 2013 from http://www.judicialcollege. vic.edu.au/eManuals/VSM/index.htm#13888.htm. Wind, L.H., Sullivan, J.M., & Levins, D.J. (2008) ‘Survivors’ perspectives on the impact of clergy sexual abuse on families of origin ’. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 17, No. 3–4, pp. 238–54. Winter, S. (2009) ‘Australia’s ex gratia redress ’. Australian Indigenous Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 49–61. Wolfe, D.A., Jaffe, P.G., Jetté, J., & Poisson, S.E. (2001) ‘Child abuse in community institutions and organizations: Improving public and professional understanding ’. Law Commission of Canada. Wolfe, D.A., Jaffe, P.G., Jetté, J., & Poisson, S.E. (2003) ‘The impact of child abuse in community institutions and organizations: Advancing professional and scientific understanding ’. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 179–91. Working with Children Check Unit, Department of Justice, Relevent offences list, Accessed on 30 September 2013 from http:// www.workingwithchildren.vic.gov.au/home/resources/publications/relevant+offences+list. Working with Children Check Unit, Department of Justice, Statistics, Accessed on 9 October 2013 from http://www. workingwithchildren.vic.gov.au/home/about+the+check/statistics/.
676 Appendices and Bibliography
Wortley, R. & Smallbone, S. (2006) ‘Applying situational principles to sexual offences against children’. In Wortley, R. and Smallbone, S. (Eds.), Crime prevention studies: Vol. 19. Situational prevention of child sexual abuse. Monsey, NY, Criminal Justice Press. Wortley, R. & Smallbone, S. (Eds.) Crime prevention studies: Vol. 19. Situational prevention of child sexual abuse. Monsey, NY, Criminal Justice Press, 2006. Wozencraft, T., Wagner, W., & Pellegrin, A. (1991) ‘Depression and suicidal ideation in sexually abused children ’. Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 505–11. Zwartz, B. ‘Senior rabbi apologises for sexual abuse cover-up’, The Age, 12 September 2013.
677 Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-Government Organisations
678